Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[Aepervius]

Sure, if you're a 13 year old boy. But a 44 year old man? Absolutely!

Nope. The fact that in some culture & time it is acceptable does not make it absolute.

What consensual part? He drugged her and got her drunk, and ignored her when she repeatedly said "no". Oh, and she was 13 and not able to legally give consent.

That was an off tangent discussion above. Can't remember who started it , "it does not matter even if it was consensual" paraphrased.

 

[madurobob]

My understanding is that applications to extradite own citizens are generally not made because of the exclusions. Probably so as not to "sour international relations".

This is really what I was getting at. It would seem the treaty allows either side to deny extradition of its citizens, but doesn't outright exclude citizens being extradited. That is, in the case of a citizen, it would be OK to ask, and it would be OK to say no.

But this was a pretty heinous crime if we're to believe the charges (drugging and raping a young teen). Why not at least ask for extradition? Would the US also not request extradition if the French citizen was found, say, to be involve with the WTC attacks? I'm inclined to believe there is more to it than simply being polite... at least it would be shameful if that's the case.

ETA: found this

The district attorney's office said Monday it had begun efforts to extradite him, but had little hope of success

So, at least there was an attempt at extradition.

Then this:

"what I wanted was to get him out of the country" Rittenband said in a telephone interview from his chambers in Santa Monica. Rittenband said that although his decision "wasn't definite", he had discussed with attorneys a plan to sentence Polanski to 48 days in prison to be followed by Polanski's voluntary deportation

So, it sounds like the plan all along was to simply be rid of him. Kinda what we got.

 

[applecorped]

Just wait until he is released and returns to France. It might make Megrahi's welcome back seem tame.

 

[Pardalis]

Interview in 1994, he didn't seem to even know he had committed a crime, did he change since then? I wouldn't think so

(relevant part at 8:36)

 

[headscratcher4]

http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2009/09/more_polanski.html

Another good column/blog on the topic.

 

[Ziggurat]

I used to think that he should be subject to whatever punishment the legal system decided upon but then I learned he was a great artist and now I think everyone should stop harassing him.

I saw a great quote on this topic, which resurfaced in regards to the Polanski case:

"If Shakespeare returned to the earth to-morrow, and if it were found that his favourite recreation was raping little girls in railway carriages, we should not tell him to go ahead with it on the ground that he might write another King Lear."
- George Orwell, "Dickens, Dali & Others: Studies in Popular Culture" (1944)

I guess times have changed.

Edit: to be clear, I know you were being facetious, so this is intended as a follow-up, not a counter.

 

[Yoink]

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

I know it through the MAGICAL process of reading about the case. The victim's own testimony is that while she said that she wanted him to stop and did not give consent, she put up no physical resistance. There were no eyewitnesses to the rape. It is therefore quite impossible that evidence pertaining to the question of consent could be brought forward in court other than "he said/she said" testimony of the victim and the perpetrator. No speculation required at all.

 

[Francesca R]

I know it through the MAGICAL process of reading about the case.

Except a rape trial did not take place, so your source it not what you think it is.

The victim's own testimony is that while she said that she wanted him to stop and did not give consent, she put up no physical resistance. There were no eyewitnesses to the rape. It is therefore quite impossible that evidence pertaining to the question of consent could be brought forward in court other than "he said/she said" testimony of the victim and the perpetrator. No speculation required at all.

And that is primary evidence. You apparently labour under the misapprehension that forensic or other circumstantial evidence is all important, or even as important in jury trials. Well you should correct that.

 

[Ziggurat]

I know it through the MAGICAL process of reading about the case. The victim's own testimony is that while she said that she wanted him to stop and did not give consent, she put up no physical resistance.

Physical resistance is not a requirement for lack of consent. And she was drugged with powerful sedatives, which make physical resistance rather difficult.

It is therefore quite impossible that evidence pertaining to the question of consent could be brought forward in court other than "he said/she said" testimony of the victim and the perpetrator. No speculation required at all.

Legally speaking, this is irrelevant: both her age and the drugging make legal consent impossible. And if the only defense of Polanski's drugging and rape of a 13 year old girl is that she might not have actually told him to stop, well, that's a pretty f***ing weak defense.

 

[Yoink]

Except a rape trial did not take place, so your source it not what you think it is.

My source is interviews with the victim.

And that is primary evidence. You apparently labour under the misapprehension that forensic or other circumstantial evidence is all important, or even as important in jury trials. Well you should correct that.

I said it was evidence. Perhaps you too should try this wonderful process known as 'reading'--it's really rather helpful. My point was that it is not sufficient evidence to amount to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." We have the victim's say-so and Polanski's say-so. No reasonable jury could conclude that the victim's say-so amounts to proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." There is always, of course, the possibility of an unreasonable jury, but I think it would have been foolish and inhumane as well as morally wrong to put the victim through the ordeal of a trial on the hopes that the jury would arrive at an unreasonable conclusion.

 

[timhau]

He had to avoid it. The self-esteemed judge was playing a dirty game with a guilty plea. That is why he had to leave the US.

Says who?

 

[Yoink]

Physical resistance is not a requirement for lack of consent. And she was drugged with powerful sedatives, which make physical resistance rather difficult.



Legally speaking, this is irrelevant: both her age and the drugging make legal consent impossible. And if the only defense of Polanski's drugging and rape of a 13 year old girl is that she might not have actually told him to stop, well, that's a pretty f***ing weak defense.

And once again: I am not saying that this is a case for acquittal. He is obviously guilty of the crime that he pleaded guilty to: unlawful sex with a minor. I am saying that the plea deal was a sensible one: it was very unlikely that a trial would have made any other charges stick (e.g., aggravating circumstances--which is where the question of consent comes in). As for the drugging; I doubt those charges could have been made to stick in a trial either--there was no toxicology evidence to prove that drugs had been administered. It is widely claimed that Polanski "admitted" administering drugs to Gailey, but he did not do so at the time of his arrest, nor was that part of his guilty plea in the plea deal. The sole crime he pleaded to was unlawful sex with a minor. I do not, myself, see any probability that a trial would have garnered any other result--and it would have seriously traumatized the victim, who would certainly have come under withering attack from Polanski's lawyers.

 

[Francesca R]

My source is interviews with the victim.

That is not trial evidence is it? Therefore you remain in a position of being unable to know what the evidence presented to a rape trial would have been.

My point was that it is not sufficient evidence to amount to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

I don't know why you think this but I know you are incorrect.

We have the victim's say-so and Polanski's say-so. No reasonable jury could conclude that the victim's say-so amounts to proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Again, incorrect. I don't think you have a lot of knowledge of jury trials. Maybe better to stop trying to offer supposed wisdom on what would have been the outcome with this one.

 

[Yoink]

That is not trial evidence is it? Therefore you remain in a position of being unable to know what the evidence presented to a rape trial would have been.

Great. Put up or shut up: name one piece of evidence that could have been brought forward--anything at all that would be consistent with what we know of the nature of the encounter according to the victim's own testimony and the amount of time that elapsed before the crime was reported. Anything?

I don't know why you think this but I know you are incorrect.

If you're saying that a jury is capable of coming to an unjustified conclusion, I've already said that. If you're saying that simply opting for the victim's testimony over the defendent's in the absence of any supporting evidence is reasonable, then I'm afraid you're wrong. That's not an opinion about how the law works, it's an opinion about the nature of the evidence.

Again, incorrect. I don't think you have a lot of knowledge of jury trials. Maybe better to stop trying to offer supposed wisdom on what would have been the outcome with this one.

I'm not saying what "would have been the outcome"--I'm saying what the prosecutors had a reasonable expectation of. You must remember that another "possible" was Polanski getting off scot free. Samantha Gailey had a 17 yr old boyfriend with whom she was sexually active. In the mid 1970s it was a lot easier for lawyers defending people accused of rape to turn the trial essentially into a trial of the victim: was she a "good girl" or not. This was, of course, a disgusting travesty of justice, but the prosecutors had to weigh that risk pragmatically in making their decision. A jury would have likely been rather unsympathetic to a sexually active teenage girl who showed up unaccompanied by an adult at a film star's house for a photo shoot with a man who--by her own testimony--had already made sexual advances to her. None of that should, in fact, serve to acquit Polanski of taking advantage of a minor, but in a real court room with real jurors in the mid-1970s it very well could have.

Again, my point is simply that the plea deal he received was a prudent one on both his and the prosecutors' parts: and above all it was a very humane one from the point of view of his victim--regardless of the verdict in court, her reputation would have been shredded in the process in the most humiliatingly public way.

 

[WildCat]

Great. Put up or shut up: name one piece of evidence that could have been brought forward--anything at all that would be consistent with what we know of the nature of the encounter according to the victim's own testimony and the amount of time that elapsed before the crime was reported. Anything?

Undisputed fact by all parties concerned: Polanski had sex with a 13 year old child.

That's rape by definition, since a 13 year old cannot give consent.

 

[Yoink]

Undisputed fact by all parties concerned: Polanski had sex with a 13 year old child.

That's rape by definition, since a 13 year old cannot give consent.

Gosh, no, you don't say? Wow! What a stunningly original insight. If I hadn't said that over and over and over again throughout this thread I'd just be flabbergasted.

Polanski pleaded guilty to that very crime. I agree that he should face whatever penalties ensue from that crime. That is not what I am arguing about.

ETA: just to spell it out: my argument is that the plea deal was a smart and reasonable move on the part of the prosecution (and not some special favor handed out to a celebrity). I am saying that they couldn't have reasonably expected to get more than a finding of "unlawful sex with a minor" from going to trial. Let me say that again: I'm saying that they could not reasonably have expected to get MORE than a finding of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" from going to trial. What I was asking Francesca R for, then, was an example of the kind of evidence that would have lead the prosecution to reasonably expect that a jury would find Polanski guilty of one of the other aggravating charges that he was originally faced with.

To say, then, "well, there's evidence that he had unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" is just laughably irrelevant.

 

[Skeptic]

It was not consensual by any stretch of the imagination.

REALLY, Library Lady! Shame on you! Don't you know the rules don't apply to rich, famous Hollywood stars?

 

[Francesca R]

Great. Put up or shut up

You're still missing the memo. The suggestion is that you "shut up", because your claim that rape could not be proven is ill-informed and not to be distinguished from garbage. You simply don't know this.

If you're saying that simply opting for the victim's testimony over the defendent's in the absence of any supporting evidence is reasonable, then I'm afraid you're wrong.

Again, incorrect.

That's not an opinion about how the law works, it's an opinion about the nature of the evidence.

Rubbish.

Again, my point is simply that the plea deal he received was a prudent one on both his and the prosecutors' parts: and above all it was a very humane one from the point of view of his victim--regardless of the verdict in court, her reputation would have been shredded in the process in the most humiliatingly public way.

That's not the point you made that I am taking issue with. It is your apparent misapprehension about requirements regarding eye-witnesses and circumstantial evidence in rape cases.

 

[LibraryLady]

REALLY, Library Lady! Shame on you! Don't you know the rules don't apply to rich, famous Hollywood stars?

*Yes, I know you were being sarcastic.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Says who?

My thought as well. I did some quick and dirty research and prior to the documentry some mentioned all I found was this:

SANTA MONICA, Calif. — The "in absentia" sentencing of Roman Polanski was postponed indefinitely yesterday when the film director's lawyer charged that the judge in the case was prejudiced and demanded that he be disqualified.

Polanski, 44, fled to Paris Feb. 2 rather than accept an indicated further prison term on his plea of guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse" with a 13-year-old girl.

I found no other suggestions of misconduct prior to the recent documentary. And prejudice is hardly the same as what is being alleged.

Walt