Should Roman Polanksi return to face court for rape?
- Thread starter Merlot
- Start date
You have said Polanski is "guilty" and you have said "Polanski should walk".
Good night T
Good morning, Merlot. Yup, I said that he should walk. And the reason I can say that is that I'm putting any personal feelings aside and I'm looking at just the facts of the case as they exist today. Prosecuting him today serves absolutely no purpose.
If you could put your personal feelings and emotions aside, you would see that I'm right.
Techman
If you could put your personal feelings and emotions aside, you would see that I'm right.
Techman
Guten morgen T,
No, it's the opposite for me. When I look at your points on this with the emotional stress of the victim, the messy legal proceedings, a guy hiding from the law, the passage of 32 years, and the need to get it all over with as well as to get on with life, I should say all this isn't worth it.
But when I look at the facts of how a 44 year old man used a young minor for sex against her will, a 13 year old girl; used his wealth to pay off the parent, then ran to escape jail or prison, in principle he deserves to pay for his crime.
In the balance between emotion and principle this guy has had a great life of fame and fortune and the money he probably paid to get away with the rape was just a drop in the ocean to him. It cost him nothing to rape (including to sodomize) a child and he just went on his merry old way living a life with a dream career. And the fact that he has had to stay away from the U.S. to live in France, where I read he has been much loved, or other countries that protected him from extradition, makes his exile (if one calls it that) totally laughable. In short: he's had a very good life and never paid for his crime.
Samantha Geimer 1978 one year after the rape. Wasn't his excuse and that of some members here that she looked much older than 13? Pllllease!
http://download.kataweb.it/mediaweb/image/brand_trovacinema/2008/08/14/1218725588177_13ok.jpg
Roman Polanski at court 1977 apx. Now that's a 44 year old man.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/12/03/movies/polanski480.jpg
Auf Wiedersehen
Merlot
Last edited:
If he was the average Shmo then they would have issued and international warrant for his arrest if he crossed into a country with an extradition treaty with the USA. . There are two possibilities. One is that the laws have been recently changed in Switzerland because of increased terrorism in this world, or it may be that because of the EEU all laws must be uniform throughout the European Ecomomic Community. If this is so, then extradition treaties would apply throughout the EEU. The bottom line, you do the crime - you do the time. Should he get off because he is rich and or famous.
when you plead guilty to a crime, you should know how long you will be in jail.
it should not be , "well its up to the judge, you never know know, could be 3 years,could be 15"
I live in the real world.
Rich people hire better lawyers,and usually get better deals,
and if they plead guilty to something, they know exactly how long they will be in jail,how long before getting out early with good behavior, what prison they will go to ,etc...
Sometimes being rich and famous will work against,
because the prosecutor will want to make an example of you;
Plaxico Burress should have gotten less than a year in prison on a deal, the same as others charged with the same crime.
but in his high profile case,where he obviously was guilty, he got the max,with no deal.
in the Michael Skakel trial, he was convicted of killing 15 year old Martha Moxley.
he was also 15 at the time of the murder in 1975.
but they didnt have enough evidence for a trial against him until 2002 when he was 42.
had they arrested him and convicted him back in 1975, since he was a minor at the time of the murder,
he would have gotten very little hard jail time.
but after his conviction in 2002, he was sentenced as an adult to 20 to life for a crime he committed as a minor.
he had a high price lawyer but the lawyer was still incompetent and the prosecutor spared no expense to get the conviction.
Poor people get free legal aid lawyers, who are overworked and understaffed.
poor people, even if they are innocent, still have to make deals because if they lose at trial, and they probably will with a crappy lawyer, they are facing 15+ years in prison.
so they plead guilty to a lesser charge and get 3 years, but they still definitely know before hand that the judge understands and agrees with the deal.
Last edited:
Merlot said:
And is that supposed to be a candid, unretouched photo? Give me a break! That is a posed shot that has been airbrushed to death. You could probably do the same thing to any escort under the age of 25. How about a photo of the girl the way she appeared on that night in the same clothes and make-up? You could just as easily take many 13 or 14 year olds and make them look 25 for a photo.
I will give you the actress Hayden Panettiere as an example, tell me how old she is in this photo and if she was an escort and showed up at your door looking like this would you question or refuse her?
:
http://img9.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=89358_hayden03_122_481lo.jpg
http://img101.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=89367_hayden04_122_340lo.jpg
Merlot said:
Do you have any evidence that there was any payoff? I've never read anything that even insinuates that. The only money that I am aware of changing hands was due to the lawsuit the girl filed against him many years later. So now you are making accusations that you are claiming to be fact with nothing to back yourself up.
You still don't get it do you? Once a deal has been offered and acepted by all parties is when a guilty plea is entered. You don't plead guilty and then wait to see if the plea bargain will be accepted. That would totally undermine the justice system because they would be making deals right, left and center to get criminals to admin guilt and just reneg on the deal and throw the person in jail. If the deal was not accepted, as is the judge's right to refuse it, then his guilty plea is null and void and there must be a trial. There is no way around it. If the guilty plea is voided then the statute of limitations applies and he is a free man. If they insist on the guilty plea being valid, then they have to fulfill their side of the deal.
By your reasoning, Canada could have just reneged on the Homolka deal once new evidence was found. But guess what? They COULD NOT! Because the deal was made and accepted. You cannot entrap someone into pleading guilty and then revoke the deal and keep the guilty plea. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, you would never get one person to accept any deal in any case, ever.
And reading your post, it's clear that you can't look at this without letting your emotions get in the way and that if it were up to you, Polanski would probably be taken out and hanged or spend the rest of his life in prison. As long as you continue to base you discussion on how you personally feel about what happened instead of the facts, there is no point in continuing this.
Techman
A "payoff" to buy or silence someone outside of any legal proceedings is a tad different from a settlement from a civil suit. Arguing that Polanski "used his wealth to pay off the parent" without providing context is rather disingenuous.
So the answer to "Should Roman Polanski return to face court for rape?" is no. Sorry, but this isn't a perfect world. And if you throw out all the arguments based solely on emotions and stick to the law, the charges should be dismissed. You don't get to re-write the law because you feel appropriate punishment has not been served.
So the answer to "Should Roman Polanski return to face court for rape?" is no. Sorry, but this isn't a perfect world. And if you throw out all the arguments based solely on emotions and stick to the law, the charges should be dismissed. You don't get to re-write the law because you feel appropriate punishment has not been served.
Hey,
When you have the arrogance to insinuate you know the mind and feelings of other people, and act as if your view is omniscient, then YOU need to severely readjust your ego.
vraiment,
Merlot
Last edited:
Where have I said that I know the mind and feelings of other people? I feel that your posts are very emotional in nature, especially the one you posted earlier today and removed before I had a chance to reply to it, and I think that's obvious to anyone who's read them.
There are a couple of very important things to point out in this case. First thing is that there was never a trial and he was never convicted of anything, he plead guilty to a lesser charge as part of a plea agreement. Second thing is that everyone seems to be taking the girl's statement as the absolute truth. As there was never a trial, she was never cross examined by his defense lawyer and her statement was never challenged in court. Polanaki has always stated that the sex was consensual. Neither statement has ever been proved or disproved in a court of law as there was never a trial.
If he is returned to the US, there would most likely have to be a trial. Due to the publicity it would be impossible to impanel an impartial jury which would prevent him from having a fair trial. Also due to the time that has passed, any witness's testimony could not be taken as a reliable account of the events of 32 years ago. That is assuming that the alleged victim would be willing to testify which from all accounts she would not be willing to do. You can't hold a trial based solely on statements that were made 32 years ago and have never been proved, especially if there is no possibility of cross examining the person who made those statements.
My last point is that when I consider this case, I look at it without considering what the charges were. I don't care if he was charged with rape, murder or jaywalking because none of the charges were ever proved and he was never convicted of any crime. So I have to look at it solely based on the events in court. He was offered a deal by the court which he accepted and which was reneged upon by the judge who was going to uphold his guilty plea anyways and sentence him beyond what the plea promised. As a result of the judge's actions Polanski panicked and ran.
So go ahead and bring him back and have a trial which will probably end in his release after wasting millions of taxpayer dollars which would be better spent elsewhere.
Makes a lot of sense to me.
Techman
Hey T,
When I say I say I am basing my view on principle not emotions after looking at the facts and you say "it's clear that you can't look at this without letting your emotions get in the way and that if it were up to you, Polanski would probably be taken out and hanged or spend the rest of his life in prison" and that as long as "I continue to base you discussion on how you personally feel about what happened instead of the facts", then you are telling me you know my mind. That is clear. I saying I want him hanged is so unworthy of you I am thinking of asking a Mod to check if someone didn't steal your password and post for you. How ridiculous.
So why does an innocent guy with enough money to hire the best lawyers plea bargain to a rape charge. Being able to get the best lawyers how can an innocent man accept the label and humiliation that puts on him.
Now really, this is going nowhere and it has become pointless to continue.
Bonne soiree,
Merlot.
Last edited:
Merlot said:
Ummm, did you ever read the reason for the plea bargain? It was offered to him to save the girl from having to go through the ordeal of a rape trial. Have you ever seen a rape trial? Most of the time you would think that the victim is actually the one on trial. They will bring out every little degrading thing that they can find, examine her sexual history under a microscope and reveal it all in open court. Considering that the girl did have a sexual history, at the age of 13, it would have ended up as quite an ordeal for her. It's not like his defense lawyers would have gone easy on her.
Plea bargains are generally offered by the prosecutor because they know that they will have a difficult time getting a conviction and in rape cases the risk of losing the case when compared to what the victim will go through during the trial is not worth it. Especially in 1978. So they offer a deal figuring that some punishment is better than the risk of none and putting the woman through a dreadful ordeal that, especially at the age of 13, could mark her for life.
When you say you are looking at the facts, you are looking only at the statement that the girl made. As I said, nothing was ever proved in a court of law and she was never cross examined so we really don't know, and probably will never know, exactly what the facts are. The only fact that is able to be considered is the fact that Polanski had a deal that the judge reneged on and he fled. If you want to discuss the fact that he fled prosecution, I'm fine with that. But then you have to take into consideration that the judge may have been guilty of judicial misconduct and seeing as he is now dead, he can't be questioned on what happened and no one else really knows. So that is basically a non starter and any charges levelled due to that will most likely be dismissed.
I just see no benefit to anyone to allow this case to continue.
As far as my comments directed towards your posts are concerned, yes I may have gone overboard with the hanged comment as I know you are against the death penalty and a non-violent person. I apologize for the comment.
But basing you view on your principles is not relevant because you don't know what really happened and are basing everything on the girl's statement, which may or not be true. Principles are pointless when it comes to law and the justice system because people often have to bend their principles to achieve something that comes even close to justice. You can live your own life according to your own principles but you cannot expect anyone else to adhere to them. And the law is something else altogether.
Techman
To me this is pretty simple... he pleaded guilty to a plea bargain then failed to show up for his sentencing... as far as I'm concerned you CAN'T allow anyone to get away with that...
give him his plea then give him 5 years for running! No need to drag the lady through this but still get justice served.
give him his plea then give him 5 years for running! No need to drag the lady through this but still get justice served.
Yes Jack I agree. I also have another question. Polanski paid off the victim isn't this considered an obstruction of justice?
If you pay money directly to the victim without the court ordering you to and to silence a witness or victim, then this is a payoff. I think he agreed to pay a court ordered settlement to settle a civil case. This is not considered a payoff.
"Should Roman Polanksi return to face court for rape?"
Furthermore, whether he "should" or not is irrelevant. Polanski did not plead guilty to the rape charge. If you want him prosecuted on that rape charge you need a trial. Except that the victim won't testify. No victim's testimony, no trial.
Furthermore, whether he "should" or not is irrelevant. Polanski did not plead guilty to the rape charge. If you want him prosecuted on that rape charge you need a trial. Except that the victim won't testify. No victim's testimony, no trial.
Well, regardless of the legalities and even the morality, the timing is very suspect, imo.
The US could have probably done this at any time in the past 30 years. Why now? Why is he suddenly a priority now? How about year 1, 2, 5, 10, etc.?
It's been said that he traveled often in Europe. And yet, he never stepped foot in a country that possibly had favourable relations with the US? I find that hard to digest.
There's been some speculation that this was done in exchange for possibly looking the other way in something involving Swiss banking. I can't buy that either; the US is going to trash a banking investigation for Pulanski?
The US could have probably done this at any time in the past 30 years. Why now?
Why is he suddenly a priority now? How about year 1, 2, 5, 10, etc.?It's been said that he traveled often in Europe. And yet, he never stepped foot in a country that possibly had favourable relations with the US? I find that hard to digest.
There's been some speculation that this was done in exchange for possibly looking the other way in something involving Swiss banking. I can't buy that either; the US is going to trash a banking investigation for Pulanski?
Hello all,
Remember, polls are just general opinions, not an absolute moral or ethical commitment. You aren't selling your soul if you participate.
Hello Kepler,
Actually, from what I understand, once a plea agreement is reached and completed the subject goes straight to jail. Allowing Polanski the lattitude to have some time before being put behind bars was special treatment for him...for some unknown reason probably related to his celebrity. So for those of you who think he is being pursued because of celebrity, it was probably because of his own abuse of celebrity favoritism that he was able to run.
Cheers,
Merlot
Remember, polls are just general opinions, not an absolute moral or ethical commitment. You aren't selling your soul if you participate.
Hello Kepler,
Actually, from what I understand, once a plea agreement is reached and completed the subject goes straight to jail. Allowing Polanski the lattitude to have some time before being put behind bars was special treatment for him...for some unknown reason probably related to his celebrity. So for those of you who think he is being pursued because of celebrity, it was probably because of his own abuse of celebrity favoritism that he was able to run.
Cheers,
Merlot
Last edited:
Similar threads
