Merged 39th year of Roman Polanski evading rape charges / Roman Polanski looks to clear name

[ddt]

I'm sure you didn't intend to equate rape with a speeding ticket but it came off that way a little.

No, I surely don't want to equate rape with a speeding ticket.

But the sentence that was recommended, by the court-appointed psychiatrist as well as by the probation officer, is in the same ballpark. That was the attitude at the time, and any possible future extradition requests will, no doubt, fail against that same argument. Or point me to a country that doesn't have a minimum sentence threshold in their extradition treaty.

BTW, Polanski pled guilty of "unlawful sex with a minor", not rape, and his victim didn't testify either that it was non-consensual. There's no reason to overstate the case.

 

[Arcade22]

Whether or not the victim of the original crime forgives him or not is irrelevant: Polanski evaded justice by fleeing. The state cannot allow people to flout its authority.

I'm pretty sure it can. In fact I'm pretty sure that it does: Polanski has been flouting the state of California's authority for just under 40 years and it hasn't been able to stop him.

Whether he stands trial for the rape or gets the charges dropped or gets found not guilty it gets a slap on the wrist doesn't matter, what matters is that he undergo the same process as everybody else. Nobody is above the law, nobody should be allowed to defy it.

Except that they do. People break the law constantly and don't get caught. Even if they are caught they simply don't get convicted because there's not enough evidence to stand up in court. Thus one can either recognize reality as it is and make the most of it or put up completely unrealistic and fantastic goals such as trying to get Polanski extradited instead of just letting him go.

That's the important part: letting bygones be bygones instead of focusing on settling scores and making examples out of people just to satisfy some principle or other.

 

[phiwum]

I'm pretty sure it can. In fact I'm pretty sure that it does: Polanski has been flouting the state of California's authority for just under 40 years and it hasn't been able to stop him.



Except that they do. People break the law constantly and don't get caught. Even if they are caught they simply don't get convicted because there's not enough evidence to stand up in court. Thus one can either recognize reality as it is and make the most of it or put up completely unrealistic and fantastic goals such as trying to get Polanski extradited instead of just letting him go.

That's the important part: letting bygones be bygones instead of focusing on settling scores and making examples out of people just to satisfy some principle or other.

Right. Like justice. Stupid principle shouldn't get in the way of the courts.

 

[Babbylonian]

No, I surely don't want to equate rape with a speeding ticket.

But the sentence that was recommended, by the court-appointed psychiatrist as well as by the probation officer, is in the same ballpark. That was the attitude at the time, and any possible future extradition requests will, no doubt, fail against that same argument. Or point me to a country that doesn't have a minimum sentence threshold in their extradition treaty.

BTW, Polanski pled guilty of "unlawful sex with a minor", not rape, and his victim didn't testify either that it was non-consensual. There's no reason to overstate the case.

Here we go again!

1. He gave a 13-year-old alcohol combined with a sedative.
2. He then had multiple (at least 3) kinds of sex with this 13-year-old.
3. She did testify that it was nonconsensual and said so again much later.
4. It was statutory rape even if she hadn't said no (she said she did).
5. It was rape.
6. Seriously, it was rape.

 

[ddt]

Here we go again!

1. He gave a 13-year-old alcohol combined with a sedative.
2. He then had multiple (at least 3) kinds of sex with this 13-year-old.
3. She did testify that it was nonconsensual and said so again much later.
4. It was statutory rape even if she hadn't said no (she said she did).
5. It was rape.
6. Seriously, it was rape.

I stand corrected on count (3). As to (4), "statutory rape" is another term for "unlawful sex with a minor". As to the rest, it is legally irrelevant as there was a plea bargain with the consent of the victim's lawyer.

 

[Babbylonian]

I stand corrected on count (3). As to (4), "statutory rape" is another term for "unlawful sex with a minor". As to the rest, it is legally irrelevant as there was a plea bargain with the consent of the victim's lawyer.

Yeah, you know, if we were in a courtroom or otherwise involved in dealing with the case officially, quibbling about what he was allowed to plead to would be pretty important. As it is, in this place, at this time, with no legal standing to protect, we should be comfortable with the fact that it was a rape.

ETA: And I should be clear about exactly why I think it's important to be clear that he committed rape, and certainly today could have been found guilty of a great deal more than statutory rape if he did exactly the same things with current laws and attitudes.

It's important because when you start diminishing the magnitude of what he actually did, it does begin to make it seem unreasonable that he would be in jail the minute he encountered police on US soil. It's not in any way unreasonable because even if he was going to be allowed to plead to a lesser charge, he actually committed a terrible crime that should have seen him in prison for years. Living in luxury in Europe after evading proper judgment and sentencing should not be seen as some sort of reasonable alternative to prison, no matter how long he lives.

 

[Elagabalus]

Good luck with that.

Let's not forget that the main reason that Switzerland denied extradition was that the US authorities could not make credible that Polanski would have gotten more than 6 month imprisonment, which was the lower bound set in the Swiss-US extradition treaty.

Let's also not forget with all the Europe-bashing in this thread, that Polanski underwent a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation which recommended just probation; and so did his probation officer. Times were very different, and so were attitudes in the US towards statutory rape.

If the US wants him extradited, they'll have to look for a country that is willing to extradite someone for anything up to an unpaid speeding ticket.

OK, I've read this thread over again and I'm not seeing any specific Euro-Bashing (even for the usual suspect posters whom you would think might try and sneak some in).

Also, the Swiss don't really consider themselves as part of Europe.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm pretty sure it can. In fact I'm pretty sure that it does: Polanski has been flouting the state of California's authority for just under 40 years and it hasn't been able to stop him.



Except that they do. People break the law constantly and don't get caught. Even if they are caught they simply don't get convicted because there's not enough evidence to stand up in court. Thus one can either recognize reality as it is and make the most of it or put up completely unrealistic and fantastic goals such as trying to get Polanski extradited instead of just letting him go.

That's the important part: letting bygones be bygones instead of focusing on settling scores and making examples out of people just to satisfy some principle or other.

Trying and failing is very different from just deciding to let it go. Justice is only justice when it applies to everyone, not just when convenient.

 

[ddt]

OK, I've read this thread over again and I'm not seeing any specific Euro-Bashing (even for the usual suspect posters whom you would think might try and sneak some in).

I think you missed this one:

In Europe it's OK to drug and rape a child if you're a famous director.

Also, the Swiss don't really consider themselves as part of Europe.

Considering that Polanski is French and Polish, I don't see the relevance?

 

[cullennz]

Good luck with that.

Let's not forget that the main reason that Switzerland denied extradition was that the US authorities could not make credible that Polanski would have gotten more than 6 month imprisonment, which was the lower bound set in the Swiss-US extradition treaty.

Let's also not forget with all the Europe-bashing in this thread, that Polanski underwent a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation which recommended just probation; and so did his probation officer. Times were very different, and so were attitudes in the US towards statutory rape.

If the US wants him extradited, they'll have to look for a country that is willing to extradite someone for anything up to an unpaid speeding ticket.

Times have changed.

If by some chance he gets extradited he is going to wish he had just stayed for the ticket at the time.

Because they aren't half going to make an example of him.

As for treated differently. Does any one really think it was "Joe Blogs" they would not have their arse on a plane?

 

[Babbylonian]

As for treated differently. Does any one really think it was "Joe Blogs" they would not have their arse on a plane?

There is absolutely no question about that in my mind. Roman Polanski has been getting special treatment since day one. Had he been a non-famous person whose wife hadn't been killed so famously, he would have gone down hard and his sweetheart plea deal would never have been offered. Had this same non-famous person managed to get out of the country, no European nation would have blocked his extradition; in fact, no nation with which the US had an extradition treaty would have blocked his extradition. Rapists just don't tend to engender that kind of solicitude.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://macaudailytimes.com.mo/day-history-1977-roman-polanski-charged-rape.html

"In August 1977 Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to having unlawful sex with the 13-year-old girl.
In December of that year he went into prison for a 90-day psychiatric study but was released after 42 days.
Knowing that he faced a possible jail sentence, Polanski jumped bail and fled to France in February 1978."

Will there be a party?

But he made some good films supposedly.

That part is true.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Hey, Ponanski has had it pretty tough since he fled the U.S., locked away, unable to do anything except live in his multiple houses in Europe, and travel to Germany, Spain, Italy, Egypt, Greece and Russia. Its like he's been in prison all this time I tell you! Pure Torture!

And its not like he was guilty of 'rape-rape'.

It was all a wacky misunderstanding.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

A great example of why stature of limitations exists: to keep cases from dragging on forever. This includes prisoners that escape and evade law enforcement for a length of time far exceeding that which they would've been imprisoned for had they completed their sentence.

Of course this being America i don't think anyone would ever pass up a chance, however remote, to imprison someone for as long as possible for any or no reason.

It does? I'm not aware of laws that apply the statute of limitations to cases where people have evaded trial and/or serving their sentence. Usually, the law doesn't reward convicted criminals for subsequent criminal actions, but if you've got evidence for such I'm definitely interested.

We should hire a sculptor to make us a statue of limitations.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

...although i guess his bones or ashes won't be able to feel suffering as that is the main raison d'etre of the American justice system: to cause suffering for the sake of suffering.

Isn't it awesome!!!

 

[phiwum]

Yeah and now, 39 years later, everything will become alright and all wounds will heal but only if he's imprisoned so it's imperative that this charade continues unabated.

One have to wonder whether or not the they can have his corpse extradited (or his ashes in case he gets cremated) to have them serve out his sentence. At this point it would make as much sense as having him do it in person, although i guess his bones or ashes won't be able to feel suffering as that is the main raison d'etre of the American justice system: to cause suffering for the sake of suffering.

Okay, perhaps we should ask some basic questions here.

Let's start with a simple one. Is it appropriate that what Polanski did is regarded as a serious crime? That is, is it appropriate that, at its very best and most innocuous interpretation, an adult man having sex with a willing thirteen-year-old girl ought to be considered a serious crime? (If not, we can change the question to more accurately reflect the general story of what happened, but let's pretend it was as close to consensual as can be.)

Having answered this question, let's turn to the next. Suppose a person has been found guilty of a serious crime and leaves the country. Has the nation a continuing interest in carrying out the sentence?

I honestly can't understand your point, Arcade22. This is a man who committed a serious crime and fled before he was sentenced. Why precisely do you suppose it's appropriate just to say, "Well, that's water under the bridge. No matter! Welcome back!"?

Do you honestly agree that what Polanski admitted to doing is a very bad thing, and that it is within the right of the state to punish very bad things?

 

[cullennz]

It wasn't that many years ago people were being prosecuted for NAZI war crimes 70 odd years old.

Do the crime. Do the time. I've never seen one of his film's. It isn't because he is famous he should face it.

It's because he is a pedo, rapist scumbag.

 

[Arcade22]

Okay, perhaps we should ask some basic questions here.

Let's start with a simple one. Is it appropriate that what Polanski did is regarded as a serious crime? That is, is it appropriate that, at its very best and most innocuous interpretation, an adult man having sex with a willing thirteen-year-old girl ought to be considered a serious crime? (If not, we can change the question to more accurately reflect the general story of what happened, but let's pretend it was as close to consensual as can be.)

From what I've read i would say that he's guilty of either rape or some serious form of sexual exploitation. Serious but not too serious.

Having answered this question, let's turn to the next. Suppose a person has been found guilty of a serious crime and leaves the country. Has the nation a continuing interest in carrying out the sentence?

Depends heavily on the specific crime and criminal so it's unreasonable to generalize.

In this case the most important thing isn't what he did rather it's the huge length of time that has passed since he left the US.

I honestly can't understand your point, Arcade22. This is a man who committed a serious crime and fled before he was sentenced. Why precisely do you suppose it's appropriate just to say, "Well, that's water under the bridge. No matter! Welcome back!"?

Because 39 years have passed. If people can't get over things that happened that long ago they won't ever no matter what you do and the last thing the state should do is sustain bad blood between people.

Do you honestly agree that what Polanski admitted to doing is a very bad thing, and that it is within the right of the state to punish very bad things?

As far as I'm concerned the reason one punishes people for their actions is solely to give them incentive not to do it again. If one punishes people for the satisfaction of it alone one is nothing but a dumb sadist.

In this specific case there's no good reason whatsoever for punishing him other than satisfying the desire for need revenge and public humiliation. No one is going to be deterred from raping or sexually abusing people because he's imprisoned 40 years after the fact nor would it make anyone safer because he's in prison cause there's no reason to suspect that he would do it again. Considering the costs involved in imprisoning people (even in low-security and open prisons) doing so in this case would be surrendering to the worst kind of self-punishing irrationality imaginable.

 

[cullennz]

From what I've read i would say that he's guilty of either rape or some serious form of sexual exploitation. Serious but not too serious.



Depends heavily on the specific crime and criminal so it's unreasonable to generalize.

In this case the most important thing isn't what he did rather it's the huge length of time that has passed since he left the US.



Because 39 years have passed. If people can't get over things that happened that long ago they won't ever no matter what you do and the last thing the state should do is sustain bad blood between people.



As far as I'm concerned the reason one punishes people for their actions is solely to give them incentive not to do it again. If one punishes people for the satisfaction of it alone one is nothing but a dumb sadist.

In this specific case there's no good reason whatsoever for punishing him other than satisfying the desire for need revenge and public humiliation. No one is going to be deterred from raping or sexually abusing people because he's imprisoned 40 years after the fact nor would it make anyone safer because he's in prison cause there's no reason to suspect that he would do it again. Considering the costs involved in imprisoning people (even in low-security and open prisons) doing so in this case would be surrendering to the worst kind of self-punishing irrationality imaginable.

Your post assumes everyone involved is over it.

Punishment is for the crime no matter how much you try to spin it.

 

[Cain]

"Rape" is a social construct.