Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland

[Merlot]

Hey JB,

So glad you enjoyed my posts.

Correct, Polanski should not have fled but considering what transpired, his trust in the US justice system was probably not that high at the time.

Oh so a convicted felon didn't trust the justice system. My gosh, how did that happened. And you sympathize with his fear of the sentence because the judge reconsidered the "sweetheart" plea bargain for whatever reason.

I know you didn't say this ( I am adding the first part so your feelings don't get hurt again) but maybe we should give all convicted felons the opportunity to flee if they are worried about the sentence. Hell why not. Think of the incarceration, appeal, and execution costs that would save.

Here's what the victim said, prior to the Polanski arrest:
The crime was committed against the state. And I normally do not believe in "victim's based justice" because justice should remain principled, impartial and impersonal. However, in this particular case, 30+ years later, when the victim almost begs for the charges to be dismissed, I'm not so sure "justice" would be served by pursuing this case any further.

So are you suggesting we wait 30+ years to see if the victim has a change of heart. Yes, let's hold all sentences to see of any of the victims lose their rage for what happened to them and get over the pain of humiliation and degradation. Do you think 30 years is enough. Geeez, of course feelings change over 30 years. Many relatives forgive the murderers of the loved ones eventually. Does that mean sentencing should be based on forgiveness 30 years later and felons including murderers should not pay as much as they would have 30 years before.

People are full of excuses here. He committed the crime and was found guilty. The only time frame that counts is how the victim felt then, what the law was then, and what the court decided then. This would all be academic and no one here has even said he shouldn't have gone to prison then. If the little prick had not run he would have gotten what he deserved then...and that should not have included a sweetheart plea bargain then.

If you read the quote in JustBob's post, you will see that she is blaming the judicial system for the current situation, not Polanski himself. She has already moved past that, most probably decades ago. The following section pretty much says it all. In fact according to the victim, he pleaded guilty to save her from the consequences of a trial. She, the victim, has actively petitioned the justice department to dismiss the case. It's time they agreed to her request.

Of course she moved past it over 30 years. Does anyone expect the victim to have the same rage, live that pain for 30 years, or feel the same hurt 30 years later. Of course she needed to get on with her life to have some quality of life. That doesn't mean there wasn't significant damage 30 years ago. So how convenient it is now that the prick ran and he has not been caught until after she moved on with her life. Maybe...she doesn't want to relive this and go through this again because THAT'S HOW PAINFUL IT WAS TO HER...then. This sentence... "I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr. Polanski may have caused me as a child,"...sure seems to point out the level of pain at the time.

Cheers,

merlot

 

[JustBob]

Hey JB,

So glad you enjoyed my posts.

merlot

You may have this uncontrollable need to impress the ladies on this forum, but doing it by taking cheap classless shots at other posters character and/or ethics is despicable and cowardly. Don't do it. That's your last piece of friendly advice.

And since your latest "oh so..." and "so are you suggesting..." is just a continuation of your overly fertile imagination putting words in my mouth, I won't even bother responding.

 

[Merlot]

You may have this uncontrollable need to impress the ladies on this forum, but doing it by taking cheap classless shots at other posters character and/or ethics is despicable and cowardly. Don't do it. That's your last piece of friendly advice.

And since your latest "oh so..." and "so are you suggesting..." is just a continuation of your overly fertile imagination putting words in my mouth, I won't even bother responding.

Hey JB,

Nice to know your full of cheap shots with your impress the ladies thing. You don't like cheap shots but your non-ethics obviously don't trouble you from using them freely...and not for the first time by a long shot.

If you don't like my posts you know where the ignore button is. If you don't want that then you know what you can do. That's my last "piece of friendly advice" hypocrite.

Cheerio,

Merlot

 

[Kepler]

Hmm... so let's see:

1-She was 13 while the age of consent was 16. That's OK because he says she looked older.

2-She said "no" many times but he raped her anyways. That's OK because it's just date rape and her mother was hoping she's get an acting role.

3-He gave her drugs and alcohol. That's OK because it was the 1970s.

4-He ran away instead of appealing the sentence like everyone else. That's OK because the judge was mean and he risked getting more than 45 days in jail for rape.

5-For 30 years he's escaped his punishment. That's a plus! We should just forget about old crimes.

6-She has been so traumatized by the media and the passage of time that she wants to forget all about it. That's great! See? She wants him to be free!


I'm not calling for blood, but surely we must make some sort of minimal example to show other criminals that they won't benefit by running away. Or else what kind of message are we sending? Or is there some other argument in his favor that I'm missing?

 

[Techman]

Merlot, he wasn't a convicted felon as you say, he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge as part of a plea bargain like many people do. He was never convicted of anything. Big difference.

In the following quote you ignore a very important word:

This sentence... "I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr. Polanski may have caused me as a child,"...sure seems to point out the level of pain at the time.

That word is "may". She didn't say that he did cause her harm, only that he may have. Her life seems to have turned out quite well and would have been much better if things had ended back in 1978 with the agreed upon plea bargain. Her identity would never have been revealed and everyone could have gotten on with their lives. Instead, some over zealous judge reneged on the deal and it has caused both of them a lot of grief ever since. It is way past time that this ends and everyone involved be allowed to get on with their lives.

And yes, I know that you're probably going to come back with something like "if he had never raped her, her life would have been much better also" and yeah, you're right. But what happened, happened. But dragging it out this long has helped no one. Not Polanski and it has certainly hurt the woman much more than if the original deal had been respected.

They should let it end.

 

[JustBob]

Merlot,

If you don't realize the seriousness of suggesting that someone's "ethics" allow them to condone the rape of drunk/drugged underaged girls, then you seriously need to step away from the keyboard and reflect on what you wrote. Or get help... As I stated, it's despicable, cowardly and way over the line. And it says a hell of a lot more about YOUR ethics (or lack of) than mine...

And please, "trying to impress the ladies" doesn't even begin to compare, not mentionning everybody knows you do it.

That's twice now that you've made serious, groundless attacks on my character/ethics without repercussion. And I can guarantee you it's the last time.

 

[Techman]

Hmm... so let's see:

1-She was 13 while the age of consent was 16. That's OK because he says she looked older.

2-She said "no" many times but he raped her anyways. That's OK because it's just date rape and her mother was hoping she's get an acting role.

3-He gave her drugs and alcohol. That's OK because it was the 1970s.

4-He ran away instead of appealing the sentence like everyone else. That's OK because the judge was mean and he risked getting more than 45 days in jail for rape.

5-For 30 years he's escaped his punishment. That's a plus! We should just forget about old crimes.

6-She has been so traumatized by the media and the passage of time that she wants to forget all about it. That's great! See? She wants him to be free!


I'm not calling for blood, but surely we must make some sort of minimal example to show other criminals that they won't benefit by running away. Or else what kind of message are we sending? Or is there some other argument in his favor that I'm missing?

Where did anyone say that anything that happened was OK? Nothing in this case was OK, from the initial offense to the judge going back on the deal that had been made. Will sending him to prison turn back the clock and make everything go away? No it won't.

 

[Merlot]

Hmm... so let's see:

1-She was 13 while the age of consent was 16. That's OK because he says she looked older.

2-She said "no" many times but he raped her anyways. That's OK because it's just date rape and her mother was hoping she's get an acting role.

3-He gave her drugs and alcohol. That's OK because it was the 1970s.

4-He ran away instead of appealing the sentence like everyone else. That's OK because the judge was mean and he risked getting more than 45 days in jail for rape.

5-For 30 years he's escaped his punishment. That's a plus! We should just forget about old crimes.

6-She has been so traumatized by the media and the passage of time that she wants to forget all about it. That's great! See? She wants him to be free!


I'm not calling for blood, but surely we must make some sort of minimal example to show other criminals that they won't benefit by running away. Or else what kind of message are we sending? Or is there some other argument in his favor that I'm missing?

He paid to compensate her for rape...that solves the issue.

Merlot,

If you don't realize the seriousness of suggesting that someone's "ethics" allow them to condone the rape of drunk/drugged underaged girls, then you seriously need to step away from the keyboard and reflect on what you wrote. Or get help... As I stated, it's despicable and cowardly. And it says a hell of a lot more about YOUR ethics (or lack of) than mine...

"Trying to Impress the ladies" doesn't even begin to compare...

What happened to last advice? Hissy fit not over yet...hmmm. And now YOUR ethics want to inflame your hypocrisy regarding cheap shots by deepening the charge. So take a good long look in the mirror.

You are so over-reaching. My comments about your posts were in regard to whether Polanski should pay for his 30 year old crime. There was not and has never been any suggestion that you condone rape. How utterly ridiculous and obtuse. That is a totally outrageous statement and a gross case of putting words in my mouth. Another hypocrisy by YOU.

Merlot, he wasn't a convicted felon as you say, he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge as part of a plea bargain like many people do. He was never convicted of anything. Big difference.

In the following quote you ignore a very important word:



That word is "may". She didn't say that he did cause her harm, only that he may have. Her life seems to have turned out quite well and would have been much better if things had ended back in 1978 with the agreed upon plea bargain. Her identity would never have been revealed and everyone could have gotten on with their lives. Instead, some over zealous judge reneged on the deal and it has caused both of them a lot of grief ever since. It is way past time that this ends and everyone involved be allowed to get on with their lives.

And yes, I know that you're probably going to come back with something like "if he had never raped her, her life would have been much better also" and yeah, you're right. But what happened, happened. But dragging it out this long has helped no one. Not Polanski and it has certainly hurt the woman much more than if the original deal had been respected.

They should let it end.

No, you and I basically agree, except maybe that I think he should return and face what he did. Besides, I think JB wants to tell me again that this is the last time...and he is boring.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Techman]

Merlot, I agree that he should return and deal with things but I understand his fear that someone may be trying to build their career by being the one who brought Polanski to justice. There would be nothing wrong with the justice dept negotiating with his lawyer to settle things once and for all but for some reason, they refuse to do that.

The way the US seems to be going after him you would think that the guy was Osama bin Laden or the Zodiac killer and you can't blame the guy for not wanting to come back under these circumstances.

 

[JustBob]

Mr Polanski's agent, Jeff Berg, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the arrest was "surprising because Roman for the last 12, 15 years has lived in Switzerland, he has a home, he travels there, he works there".

Justice spokesman Guido Balmer said the difference with this particular trip was that authorities knew exactly when and where Mr Polanski would arrive.

Say what?

US prosecutors have disputed claims that Roman Polanski's arrest came out of the blue, saying he had been on an Interpol "wanted list" for years.

Polanski is being held in Switzerland on a US arrest warrant over his conviction, 30 years ago, for unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.

His agent, Jeff Berg, said the arrest made "no sense" as he had travelled extensively across Europe.

But US authorities implied Polanski had been adept at evading arrest.

"The idea that we have known where he is and we could have gotten him anytime, that just isn't the case," said Chief Inspector of the US Marshals Service Thomas Hession.

That's just retarded... lolllll

How inept can law enforcement be? Can Polanski make himself invisible? Is he some cunning master of disguise? How hard is it to find someone shooting a major picture in a European country? Jesus...

 

[Merlot]

Merlot, I agree that he should return and deal with things but I understand his fear that someone may be trying to build their career by being the one who brought Polanski to justice. There would be nothing wrong with the justice dept negotiating with his lawyer to settle things once and for all but for some reason, they refuse to do that.

The way the US seems to be going after him you would think that the guy was Osama bin Laden or the Zodiac killer and you can't blame the guy for not wanting to come back under these circumstances.

Hello Techman,

I just don't see the legal relevance of his fears. He did it. That's incontestable. Of course he fears the sentence or trial or whatever. The guilty have a very good reason. But are anyone's fears legally relevant. Anyone who is guilty has fears. Many who are not guilty have fears. Should any justice system hold their hands because the guilty fear a sentence. I don't think any justice system should negotiate anything. As for plea bargains from overseas. the trouble is...he ran. And that makes it look like he is trying to dictate not negotiate, treating the court system like a business deal for his benefit.

How inept can law enforcement be? Can Polanski make himself invisible? Is he some cunning master of disguise? How hard is it to find someone shooting a major picture in a European country? Jesus...

You mean countries that won't grant extradition to the U.S. DUH!

Okay, that's enough for me. JB...SEDATIVE!

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Doc Holliday]

What it seems like is that the prosecution is once again attempting to victimize the victim, even if it's not what it intends to do. She's been through enough & a high profile trial is the last thing she wants for herself & her family, after all these years. She's the last person being considered here. It should be the total opposite. What it appears to be is a prosecutor wanting to make a name for himself, in a high profile trial. Let's be honest: it has nothing to do with the degree of Polanski's guilt. It's all about selfishness. Sure, the guy should have stayed & faced trial like everyone else. But he felt he got fucked (and he did) by the judge & since the judge wasn't going to keep his end of the bargain & make Polanski a scapegoat, Polanski didn't keep his end of the deal either & went back home in France.

There are no rights here. But there are many wrongs & it starts with the wrong presently being done to the victim & her family, with nothing to gain other than political points.

 

[JustBob]

You mean countries that won't grant extradition to the U.S. DUH!

Okay, that's enough for me. JB...SEDATIVE!

Cheers,

merlot

And once again, Merlot fails at reading!

 

[Kepler]

Merlot, he wasn't a convicted felon as you say, he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge as part of a plea bargain.... He was never convicted of anything. Big difference.

Absolutely no difference in law, nor in real life. A criminal is a criminal.

She didn't say that he did cause her harm, only that he may have. Her life seems to have turned out quite well

You're joking. Have you read her description of her teen years?

Will sending him to prison turn back the clock and make everything go away? No it won't.

Sending people to prison never turns back the clock.

But he felt he got fucked (and he did) by the judge & since the judge wasn't going to keep his end of the bargain & make Polanski a scapegoat, Polanski didn't keep his end of the deal either

First of all, judges never make deals. Prosecutors suggest deals, and judges always have the right to reject the deal. Second, saying that spending more than 45 days in jail for rape is "getting fucked" is surprising to me. And finally, I'm sure all criminals feel fucked when they're caught!

One final thing: remember, if you're ever arrested, you are usually set free while awaiting trial. Guys like him who jump bail (a crime in itself) undermine the system and make it more likely that when you need the system to work for you... it won't!

 

[JustBob]

One final thing: remember, if you're ever arrested, you are usually set free while awaiting trial. Guys like him who jump bail (a crime in itself) undermine the system and make it more likely that when you need the system to work for you... it won't!

Sure you want the system to work. But the fact remains that in this case, the system screwed up.

 

[Morris Wanchuk]

Roman Polanski is free to go home

http://news.google.com/news/more?q=...=more-results&cd=1&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQqgIoADAB

 

[Mod 11]

Threads merged.

 

[Kepler]

A great victory for all convicted child rapists! And a lesson too: if you evade justice long enough, Switzerland will keep you safe.

 

[Jman47]

What a f'king joke...

 

[Dee]

Disgusting, absolutely disgusting... and imagine... it will make some on the board happy.

It's all beyond me.