Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[Aepervius]

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/?last_story=/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/

You might have to be registered to get to this, but it pretty well puts it in perspective.

The best argumetn I see so far. I had to click around by the way as your link goes to a page on Christie heffner.... (?).

 

[Aepervius]

Because California juries have a history of letting celebrity criminal defendants off.

ACtually that is not far off. I read some comment along the line that such type of partying and raping was not unhread of, what was unheard of was that he was prosecuted.

 

[let`s talk]

It is very relevant. Switzerland has signed extradition agreements with the USA, and as Timhau has noted, the crime he has been convicted for is also a crime in Switzerland, and isn't covered by a statute of limitation anymore.

Ok.

But I still do not understand why there is no statute of limitation in some countries.

The story will end up as a farce at the end.

 

[coalesce]

Gotta love Debra Winger's pleas to not fiddle while Roman burns.

"Debra Winger, who serves as president of the Zurich fest's jury, on Monday demanded Polanski's release and criticized Swiss authorities for their "philistine collusion" in arresting Polanski as he entered the country.

"This fledgling festival has been unfairly exploited, and whenever this happens the whole art world suffers," Winger said in a statement on Monday, standing together with the other four international jury members who wore red badges reading "Free Polanski" as they announced plans to continue the fest."


http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118009265.html?categoryid=10&cs=1

That's funny: I'm a painter and I haven't suffered one iota since Polanski was arrested.

Michael

 

[Aepervius]

About statutory rape law, interresting stuff :

http://law.marquette.edu/lawreview/Spring 2006/Olszewski.pdf

For all those saying 13 year old is too young, up until 19th century 10 was the age limit for statutory rape. So if I udnerstand that correctly, having sex with a 11 consenting year old was OK.

PS: In case you wonder I am not saying he did not rape her or anything, I am just saying people being intransigent on the age of consent should realize this is a culturally and historically changing thing. If you read above, the age of consent was for girl only. Only later on feminist required the law to be made gender neutral.

 

[madurobob]

On the other hand if France extradited somebody without having a written and ratified extradition treaty, I would be the first on the barricade. There is a reason for those treaty to exists.

As I understand it, France does have an extradition treaty with the USA. But, France can refuse categorically to extradite French citizens or anyone they feel may not get a fair trial in the USA.

But, I wonder if, in the past couple of decades, anyone ever asked France to pick up Polanski and send him over?

ETA: IANAL, but this looks like its been in place since 1911: Extradition Treaty With France. Rape is one of the specific offenses mentioned.

 

[Francesca R]

To say "they're all the same thing" seems to me the kind of thinking that leads to stupid zero-tolerance nonsense.

Well yeah . . . because many societies don't want to tolerate any of it.

 

[Francesca R]

as is all too often the case with charges of rape--we don't really have enought evidence to determine the question of "consent." Is it possible that a thirteen year old girl lied about consensual sex because she thought her mother would give her hell if she admitted it? Yes. Is it possible that Polanksi simply raped her despite her very clear demands that he stop? Yes. Do we have any evidence at all that would help us determine those questions? No.

How do you know this? Oh that's right, you don't.

We should, then, confine ourselves to the only crime that can be proven; unlawful sex with a minor.

Ditto, you don't have much of an idea about whether anything else can be proven.

 

[bob_cadaver]

I don't see the point of a trial if the now-adult victim says it isn't worth it to her. So far as I know, (and I forget the source, sorry, I can't link it here) she felt that the rape wasn't what was really harmful to her, it was the media surrounding it. Yes, he raped that girl, that's obvious, but if she's saying she wants the furor to die down so she can go on without having to be reminded of it, that's cool with me.
I've worked as a non-custodial parent visit supervisor--say that five times fast--and I have met parents who have made that decision themselves, saying that a trial of the perpetrator would only make the whole trauma worse and more difficult for their child to heal from. Sure, you want people who so flagrantly violate the law and children to pay for it, but if that means adding to the victims's misery, then I can't say I support it unless other children are at risk. Polanski doesn't have chronic history of drugging and raping other young girls, so I have to agree with the victims' wishes.

 

[Francesca R]

I don't see the point of a trial if the now-adult victim says it isn't worth it to her.

Rape is usually a crime against the state.

So far as I know, (and I forget the source, sorry, I can't link it here) she felt that the rape wasn't what was really harmful to her, it was the media surrounding it. Yes, he raped that girl, that's obvious, but if she's saying she wants the furor to die down so she can go on without having to be reminded of it, that's cool with me.

A counter-argument to this is--related to the above--this is not just about her (the victim). It is about acting to stop/prevent the crime of rape in general as well, by doing things such as not sending signals that showbiz personalities who have made positive contributions to art/entertainment can get away with atrocities.

I've worked as a non-custodial parent visit supervisor--say that five times fast--and I have met parents who have made that decision themselves, saying that a trial of the perpetrator would only make the whole trauma worse and more difficult for their child to heal from.

. . . On the other hand, it is hard to conduct a trial if key witnesses won't testify.

Sure, you want people who so flagrantly violate the law and children to pay for it, but if that means adding to the victims's misery, then I can't say I support it unless other children are at risk. Polanski doesn't have chronic history of drugging and raping other young girls, so I have to agree with the victims' wishes.

Other children are at risk. Maybe not from Polanski, but from the crime itself if justice was seen to be taking a break.

 

[Just thinking]

I heard this morning that some in Hollywood are petitioning his release ... Woody Allen being among them.

Woody Allen? ... Holy Christmas!! What Chutzpah!

 

[timhau]

Not that I disagree with you on that, but look at it this way: Do the United States of America routinely extradit their own citizens to foreign countries whose judicial system has, on more than one occasion, practically been asking to be ridiculed?

Probably not, but then again I'd bet a tidy sum that the American justice system works just fine at least 98% of the time. The tiny fraction that is screwed up gets all the press. Furthermore, we can also find European justice systems that give lots of screwed-up results; how about smuggling copious quantities of pot and hashish netting you over 10 years, while stabbing a stranger on the street with said stranger dying in hospital on the same night gives you 6+ years, out on parole after 3.5? That's Finland for you, but there's fairly little international interest in digging up all the absurdities in the Finnish justice system, so we get a free pass.

 

[ZirconBlue]

As the result, the judge arranged a plea bargain, then reneged on it.

This didn't happen.

It is called "Release from Criminal Responsibility in Connection with the Expiration of Statutes Limitation on Actions":

"-A person shall be released from criminal responsibility if the following time-limits have expired since the day of commission of a crime:
ten years after the commission of a grave crime;
fifteen years after the commission of an especially grave crime.
The periods of limitation shall not be applied to persons who have committed crimes against the peace and security of humankind."

...says the law of one of European countries.

In the US? No periods of limitation?

Certain crimes, depending on the jurisdiction have what is called a statute of limitations. But, even if that were applicable to this crime, as I understand it, that SoL only applies to how long after the fact that a person can be prosecuted. Polanski is not being prosecuted 30+ years after the fact. He already had his day in court and used it to plead guilty.

I don't see the point of a trial if the now. . . .

I don't either. He already had his day in court and plead guilty. He should just be returned for sentencing.

 

[headscratcher4]

The best argumetn I see so far. I had to click around by the way as your link goes to a page on Christie heffner.... (?).

Here's where it is today:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_justice/index.html

 

[Walter Wayne]

Ok.

But I still do not understand why there is no statute of limitation in some countries.

The story will end up as a farce at the end.

Not sure about Californian, but statutes of limitation often only apply to the delay between offense and being charge/indicted on an offense. Delays in the process are usually not seen as cause for dismissal if they are caused by the suspect/defense.

Walt

ETA: IANAL

 

[Francesca R]

Here's where it is today:

Really?

Want justice for Polanski? Let him go

ETA--You mean this one: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/index.html

(which I pretty-much fully agree with)

 

[Ryokan]

Hey he is no where near as bad as Issei Sagawa, who in france murdered and ate a college student. After being deported after being found legaly insane, he checked himself out of the mental hospital in Japan.

And now he's a famous food critic in Japan. How's that for irony?

 

[headscratcher4]

Really?



ETA--You mean this one: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/index.html

(which I pretty-much fully agree with)

Wow...did I blow that link or what? My bad. So sorry.

Let's try this one:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/

 

[Ladewig]

About statutory rape law, interresting stuff :

http://law.marquette.edu/lawreview/Spring 2006/Olszewski.pdf

For all those saying 13 year old is too young, up until 19th century 10 was the age limit for statutory rape. So if I udnerstand that correctly, having sex with a 11 consenting year old was OK.

PS: In case you wonder I am not saying he did not rape her or anything, I am just saying people being intransigent on the age of consent should realize this is a culturally and historically changing thing. If you read above, the age of consent was for girl only. Only later on feminist required the law to be made gender neutral.

I am one of the intransigent folks in this thread and after reading your statistics, I say "so what?" The law had not been that way for over 80 years. Everyone involved in the crime (including the witness) knew that sex with a 13-year-old was illegal under all conditions. Everyone knew that it was impossible under California law for a 13-year-old to give consent under any conditions.

Furthermore, there were all sorts of unjust laws based racial qualifications in the nineteenth century. Those laws were later overturned. If someone killed a black person in the 20th century, it would be absurd to point out that the laws against killing black people in the early nineteenth century were much more lenient and that fact should be considered in deciding what an appropriate punishment for a 20th-century murderer should be.

 

[johnny karate]

Another brilliant legal scholar chimes in.