Roman Polanski Arrested In Switzerland

[RobAce]

I had fuzzy memories of the crime that Polanski was accused of. So with this debate here I went back and read the transcripts from the trial, and this is a summery of them:

In 1977, Roman Polanski was 44-years-old and one of the most prominent directors in Hollywood. In March of that year, during a private photo shoot with a 13-year-old girl named Samantha Gailey, he gave her champagne, quaaludes and a sedative. Then, despite her telling him that she wanted to go home and “no” and “stop” while he forced himself on her, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her. To put it another way, he drugged a child then fucked her in the ass while she begged him to stop.

I'm thinking of this when watching what the legal system does with him.

Myriads

The Irony is just toooooooo delicious.

Rob

 

[Deleted member 66627]

Meanwhile Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese have started a petition and other Hollywood heads have signed it, objecting the arrest.

There was an interesting discussion about it on the radio this morning. Some of the folks felt that he should just be released because his parents were involved in the Holocaust and Polanski grew up with an extraordinarily rough life.

Meanwhile, would these same Studio Heads form a petition against it if it was say, the Pope who committed this crime?

Personally, I find it ironic that Woody Allen is all about this, given his own personal decisions on wife material. Maybe not so ironic actually..

 

[Texas_Tickle]

Because of fame and Americas anal obsession with it the worst this rapist will get is a few months in an open prison and he'll be out in 25 days for good behavior. He'll make millions off the publicity, book deals and film of his life

Yes and no. It goes both ways. Yes many times the courts do grant leniency to those in the public eye (Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson being prime examples)

But sometimes you do get a DA who really wants to stick it to them, just for his own shot at 15 minutes of fame.

 

[Black Hat]

I had fuzzy memories of the crime that Polanski was accused of. So with this debate here I went back and read the transcripts from the trial, and this is a summery of them:

In 1977, Roman Polanski was 44-years-old and one of the most prominent directors in Hollywood. In March of that year, during a private photo shoot with a 13-year-old girl named Samantha Gailey, he gave her champagne, quaaludes and a sedative. Then, despite her telling him that she wanted to go home and “no” and “stop” while he forced himself on her, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her. To put it another way, he drugged a child then fucked her in the ass while she begged him to stop.

source: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

I'm thinking of this when watching what the legal system does with him.

Myriads

All this and yet the victim is not the one pressing charges, in fact I believe she even supported Polanski for trying to have the case dismissed. With that said how horrible was his crime, when the one who suffered the most isn't willing to see him face jail time?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/polanskis-cause-has-a-backer-in-his-victim-.html#more

 

[Fire_Sprite]

All this and yet the victim is not the one pressing charges, in fact I believe she even supported Polanski for trying to have the case dismissed. With that said how horrible was his crime, when the one who suffered the most isn't willing to see him face jail time?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/polanskis-cause-has-a-backer-in-his-victim-.html#more

Well these situations shouldn't be about placating the victim. If you kill someone you're going to jail no matter how their corpse feels about it. Crimes like rape and assault carry penalty's whether the victim presses charges or not.

 

[Deleted member 66627]

All this and yet the victim is not the one pressing charges, in fact I believe she even supported Polanski for trying to have the case dismissed. With that said how horrible was his crime, when the one who suffered the most isn't willing to see him face jail time?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/polanskis-cause-has-a-backer-in-his-victim-.html#more

Well of course the victim is going to let bygones be bygones, she got paid a nice fat stack of cash.

And rape is horrible regardless.

 

[Black Hat]

Well of course the victim is going to let bygones be bygones, she got paid a nice fat stack of cash.

And rape is horrible regardless.

DON'T misunderstand me...I am NOT condoning rape, especially of a minor. None-the-less if the victim is no longer willing to prosecute, who's place is it to say a jail time is warranted?? (I'll get to that later)

By her own volition there is no longer a victim willing to press charges.

Thus we have a victimless crime...that's some twisted logic, eh? But imagine a man who has just been robbed. He uncovers the thief but says all is forgiven (...because he found that parting with his possessions led him to a new spiritual awakening.) No victim, no prosecution, no crime. The justification for prosecution has faltered.

On the flip side, the state may prosecute on another rational. On the basis that 'rape' is illegal. At that point there is nothing more to be said.

 

[Deleted member 66627]

On the flip side, the state may prosecute on another rational. On the basis that 'rape' is illegal. At that point there is nothing more to be said.

Agreed. You've also got a pissed off state who's been trying to "get the guy" for over 30 years now.

 

[kurchatovium]

DON'T misunderstand me...I am NOT condoning rape, especially of a minor. None-the-less if the victim is no longer willing to prosecute, who's place is it to say a jail time is warranted?? (I'll get to that later)

By her own volition there is no longer a victim willing to press charges.

Thus we have a victimless crime...that's some twisted logic, eh? But imagine a man who has just been robbed. He uncovers the thief but says all is forgiven (...because he found that parting with his possessions led him to a new spiritual awakening.) No victim, no prosecution, no crime. The justification for prosecution has faltered.

On the flip side, the state may prosecute on another rational. On the basis that 'rape' is illegal. At that point there is nothing more to be said.

There are rights which are considered to be so important that one can not forfeit them. I would think the right of a child not to be drugged and raped would be one of those rights. Thus even if the victim has forgiven the attacker the court still sees this as a crime no matter what.

Personally I find this crime so disgusting I hope prosecutors throw the book at him.

 

[Black Hat]

Agreed. You've also got a pissed off state who's been trying to "get the guy" for over 30 years now.

LOL That he does...

30 years of repressed justice is an ugly ugly thing.

 

[TonyInMyThroat]

There are rights which are considered to be so important that one can not forfeit them. I would think the right of a child not to be drugged and raped would be one of those rights. Thus even if the victim has forgiven the attacker the court still sees this as a crime no matter what.

Personally I find this crime so disgusting I hope prosecutors throw the book at him.

How dare you kurtch!
Obviously you missed the impassioned “Leave Roman Alone” speech by Deborah Winger (who’s not looking marrrrvelous these days by the way) such that we should let bygones be bygones! 🙄

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/As7nJgSoWrg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/As7nJgSoWrg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

 

[kurchatovium]

How dare you kurtch! Obviously you missed the impassioned “Leave Roman Alone” speech by Debrah Winger such that we should leave bygones be bygones!

LOL Even though I live near Hollywood I try to avoid listening to Hollywood as much as possible. I find I am much happoer that way. 😉 😛

 

[MrMacphisto]

There are rights which are considered to be so important that one can not forfeit them. I would think the right of a child not to be drugged and raped would be one of those rights. Thus even if the victim has forgiven the attacker the court still sees this as a crime no matter what.

Personally I find this crime so disgusting I hope prosecutors throw the book at him.

None of this gets rid of the fact that the judge in the original trial abused his power as well.

If we set the precedent that any agreements made with a judge can simply be ignored after time served, then you might as well let judges rape people as well.

Normally, I'd be all in favor of sending Polanski to jail for a long time, but the fact remains that the original prosecution's trial is essentially allowing the new prosecution to commit double jeopardy against Polanski at this point.

 

[kurchatovium]

None of this gets rid of the fact that the judge in the original trial abused his power as well.

If we set the precedent that any agreements made with a judge can simply be ignored after time served, then you might as well let judges rape people as well.

Normally, I'd be all in favor of sending Polanski to jail for a long time, but the fact remains that the original prosecution's trial is essentially allowing the new prosecution to commit double jeopardy against Polanski at this point.

If the judge messed up that badly then by all means give him a cell next to Polanksi. To me this goes in the category of two wrongs not making a right. Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl that is a wrong that must be addresed as best as we can.

I am not certain of all the particulars in this case but if in fact double jeopardy was indeed the case I am surprised anyone would pursue it as it would easily be thrown out.

Perhaps though if all you say is true they are just going through the motions just to send a message out there to all would be rapists and molesters that we will pursue you forever and prosecute to the full extent we can.

 

[MrMacphisto]

If the judge messed up that badly then by all means give him a cell next to Polanksi. To me this goes in the category of two wrongs not making a right. Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl that is a wrong that must be addresed as best as we can.

I am not certain of all the particulars in this case but if in fact double jeopardy was indeed the case I am surprised anyone would pursue it as it would easily be thrown out.

Perhaps though if all you say is true they are just going through the motions just to send a message out there to all would be rapists and molesters that we will pursue you forever and prosecute to the full extent we can.

I can only hope that your last statement is true. I have my doubts though.

 

[c7_assassin]

How dare you kurtch!
Obviously you missed the impassioned “Leave Roman Alone” speech by Deborah Winger (who’s not looking marrrrvelous these days by the way) such that we should let bygones be bygones! 🙄

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/As7nJgSoWrg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/As7nJgSoWrg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

I LOL'd when she said the case was all but dead, except for a "minor" technicality. Nice double-meaning. 😉

 

[Redmage]

If the judge messed up that badly then by all means give him a cell next to Polanksi.

A) The judge is dead. B) What he did might well get him disbarred, or not even that; but it's not prosecutable in any case.

The judge apparently planned to throw out Polanski's plea bargain, some three months after he (the judge) signed off on it, reinstate the charges that had been dropped, and hit him with prison time when even the DA's office had not been pushing for that. All of this came about partly as a result of the judge discussing the case with a prosecutor who was not part of the legal decision, but who had a bee in his bonnet for Polanski.

It's not illegal, but it is highly unethical. And it's not hard to see how, once Polanski got wind of these plans, he decided that he simply couldn't get fair treatment from the justice system, and took off.

 

[Redmage]

Well of course the victim is going to let bygones be bygones, she got paid a nice fat stack of cash.

That doesn't oblige her to be forgiving. At best it just prevents her from pursuing civil action.

Out of curiosity, how much was she paid, and when?

 

[Redmage]

Well these situations shouldn't be about placating the victim. If you kill someone you're going to jail no matter how their corpse feels about it.

Naturally we can't seek the corpse's opinion. However if the "victim" in a case like that consented beforehand (as in assisted suicide) then arguably the state should take that into consideration when deciding on prosecution.

In the same way, if the victim of a crime like Polanski's decides that enough is enough, then she would be in a good position to know.

 

[b0xr]

It bothers me that this 30 year old case is getting so much press these days and I do understand why it is getting all the ink. However. what I DO NOT understand is that a college girl that "accused" 4 young men of luring her into their Hofstra University dorm room and raping her was proven wrong by a cell phone picture. After the charges had been filed against these guys for tying her up and raping her, she recanted her story and said she only said that because she didn't want her boyfriend to know she had consentual sex with them. Now these guys are marked for life as sex offenders. The charges brought on the girl? Nothing nada zilch! That case was a huge news story until they found out the girl lied and now it was a small piece on page 2 of Sunday's paper. Case swept under the rug (she got some community service and "therapy")But what about those 4 guys that were charged with rape? Where is their justice? Sex laws are there to protect, however, do not protect everyone for all sex crimes.
I don't think putting Roman Polanski in jail would benefit anyone at this point. Let the courts sort it out.

 

[asutickler]

When you get right down to it, this guy drugged and then violated a 13 year old girl via pretty much every orifice possible after she said "no" and told him that she wanted to go home. He received a plea deal that was far, far too lenient, and then skipped out on his sentencing because he heard a rumor that the judge planned to set his plea bargain aside. The judge in the original case sounds like a tool, yes... But that means one should appeal, not flee the country.

I say honor his previous plea bargain, and then throw the damn book at him for fleeing his sentencing. Charge him as a repeat offender, deny bail since he's a proven flight risk, and then dump his molesting ass into maximum security for 10-15.

They can mail him his Oscar in prison. Maybe his cellmate will find a nice place to put it.

 

[Ticklish9's]

If the judge messed up that badly then by all means give him a cell next to Polanksi. To me this goes in the category of two wrongs not making a right. Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl that is a wrong that must be addresed as best as we can.

I am not certain of all the particulars in this case but if in fact double jeopardy was indeed the case I am surprised anyone would pursue it as it would easily be thrown out.

Perhaps though if all you say is true they are just going through the motions just to send a message out there to all would be rapists and molesters that we will pursue you forever and prosecute to the full extent we can.

The purpose of the justice system is to maintain order and give victims of crimes a place of redress. The victim here has forgiven him and dismisses the trial. I think there is nothing worse than rape, no matter how it's accomplished, but I also think that pursuing a case with the intent of anything greater than censure here is fairly aimless. Does she want to press charges? No? No case.

 

[kurchatovium]

The purpose of the justice system is to maintain order and give victims of crimes a place of redress. The victim here has forgiven him and dismisses the trial. I think there is nothing worse than rape, no matter how it's accomplished, but I also think that pursuing a case with the intent of anything greater than censure here is fairly aimless. Does she want to press charges? No? No case.

The purpose of the justice system is to achieve justice not just for the victim but for the community as a whole. The justice system is there to help deter crime by punishing the perptrators of crime. This why there are rights that you even yourself can not dismiss, so people can not be bribed, swindled, or blackmailed out of them. Some rights are so important and precious they outweigh whatever the original victims desire. The woman whether she has absolved the perpertrator or not, was drugged and violated in a most dispicable manner when she was a 13 year old child. The horror of that crime means that it is something justice needs to pursue whether the original victim feels that way or not. It is justice that is being pursued and gone after here so that perhaps others may not suffer the same fate as she did. That is justice.

So yes there is a case.

 

[MrMacphisto]

The purpose of the justice system is to achieve justice not just for the victim but for the community as a whole. The justice system is there to help deter crime by punishing the perptrators of crime.

I can assure you that locking up Polanski isn't going to deter anyone other than Polanski himself.

This why there are rights that you even yourself can not dismiss, so people can not be bribed, swindled, or blackmailed out of them. Some rights are so important and precious they outweigh whatever the original victims desire. The woman whether she has absolved the perpertrator or not, was drugged and violated in a most dispicable manner when she was a 13 year old child. The horror of that crime means that it is something justice needs to pursue whether the original victim feels that way or not. It is justice that is being pursued and gone after here so that perhaps others may not suffer the same fate as she did. That is justice.

In many other cases, I would agree. In this case... not really.

Let me give another example that is somewhat similar. Everybody knows about the Chappaquidick incident. Ted Kennedy drove a car off of a bridge and negligently allowed a woman to drown. Back when it happened, he should've been brought to court and served some time for manslaughter and criminal negligence. Obviously, that didn't happen.

If, however, he was brought to court 30 years later on these charges, it would be mostly irrelevant. What's the point of convicting someone over something that happened that long ago -- something that was known in the public record and something he had been shamed about ever since? It's not like Ted was going to drown somebody else again.

It may not be fair that a guy like him escaped conviction because of his fame and power, but if you're going to prosecute, you're supposed to do it in a timely fashion. Waiting a few decades to prosecute ends the relevance of conviction.

The only time something like that makes sense is if it was unknown who the culprit was, and they had just discovered who did it.

For example, it made sense that the BTK killer was brought up on charges 30 years later because he escaped being identified by authorities for that long. He murdered several people and clearly would have continued to do so had he not turned himself in. The scariest part of all that was that the only reason he got caught was because he admitted to all of it.

With Polanski, a corrupt judge mishandled the case, and Polanski fled the country to escape this distortion of the justice system.

If anything, it shows how judges have too much power in our system. If a judge can legally get away with altering plea bargains as he/she sees fit, then it's no longer about justice. It's about power and corruption.

Unfortunately, that irreversibly taints Polanski's case. There's nothing the new prosecution can do to change that.

Mark my words... Polanski's defense is going to have a field day with the history behind this case, and in all likelihood, the resulting sentence is going to be much lighter than what much of the public seems to be lobbying for.

In effect, this isn't really just a rape case. It's a case that will be very influential in setting precedents for how judges are allowed to handle plea bargains.

Of course, there is always the chance that they will ignore the previous corruption by the original judge, but if they do that, then it's going to set some very negative precedents for our system overall -- a level of damage to justice much greater than letting Polanski go.

 

[desdemona]

Let me give another example that is somewhat similar. Everybody knows about the Chappaquidick incident. Ted Kennedy drove a car off of a bridge and negligently allowed a woman to drown. Back when it happened, he should've been brought to court and served some time for manslaughter and criminal negligence. Obviously, that didn't happen.

If, however, he was brought to court 30 years later on these charges, it would be mostly irrelevant. What's the point of convicting someone over something that happened that long ago -- something that was known in the public record and something he had been shamed about ever since? It's not like Ted was going to drown somebody else again.

It may not be fair that a guy like him escaped conviction because of his fame and power, but if you're going to prosecute, you're supposed to do it in a timely fashion. Waiting a few decades to prosecute ends the relevance of conviction.

The only time something like that makes sense is if it was unknown who the culprit was, and they had just discovered who did it.

For example, it made sense that the BTK killer was brought up on charges 30 years later because he escaped being identified by authorities for that long. He murdered several people and clearly would have continued to do so had he not turned himself in. The scariest part of all that was that the only reason he got caught was because he admitted to all of it.

Not to derail things, but by your argument, war criminals should be exempt from prosecution? Or at the least, not worth bringing up on charges since everyone knows their crimes and they have had to live with the guilt and won't be committing those previous atrocities again? That seems a bit over the top. Perhaps that's just me, being devil's advocate.