Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[Cicero]

Whoopie clarifies.

Whoopie did go on to say that Polish pedophiles usually target adults.

 

[GreyICE]

It is, but what he pled guilty to was only the first, statutory rape. That's what he needs to be punished for, and nothing else (except maybe fleeing justice).

Who cares. He fled justice before there could even be a proper trial (that's a crime too), lock him up.

 

[varwoche]

I think it would be naive not to recognise that there was a lot about the girl's behaviour that Polanski took as a green flag, no matter how old he thought she was.

Even if true, this is after she was plied with alcohol and quaaludes.

Not to mention, the "the slut asked for it" argument doesn't wash.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

I was referring more to the fact that the girl not only recognised the quaalude, but had taken them before, and had had sex at least twice before. While you and I may think this does not make any difference to what Polanski did, I can see his defence attourney making hay with that sort of admission.

Since when does having consensual sex prior to being raped affect the rape case?

And if you are given an incapacitating drug, by the rapist, prior to being raped, how does that mitigate the crime?

I can see that the prosecution not wanting to drag the girl through those details, but I can't see that affecting the legal standing of rape.

 

[Francesca R]

Since when does having consensual sex prior to being raped affect the rape case?

That varies. In the UK FYI, prior to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, the complainant's sexual history could be readily wheeled out. Since then, fortunately, it cannot.

ETA--Actually it still was used regularly as "evidence" until the much tighter Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

But even today it would be fanciful to suppose that a rape victim did not seriously fear cross-examination about sexual history.

ETA2--Why don't I go ahead and quote the post I pulled this from:

[ . . . ] here are a few of the changes that have happened. The purpose of noting them is to accept that change has happened but to offer the view that there is further to go:

The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 was the first ruling that the sexual history of the complainant could not be freely probed in a rape trial. However this was much later judged as inadequate in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 which prohibits sexual history evidence to other sexual offences in addition to rape, but there are still rules of admissability. The fear of cross examination about sexual history is a great deterrent to rape victims pursuing justice.

In 1982 a judge (Bertrand Richards) who fined the rapist of a teenager £2000 because the victim was "guilty of a great deal of contributory negligence" for hitchhiking at night (he also said she was "asking for it") was later shamed and banned from sex cases. Contributory negligence has been much diluted as a defence in rape cases but only in the last 20 years.

In 1990 a judge (Kenneth Jupp) gave a suspended sentence to a man who twice raped his wife, on the basis that "It was a rare sort of rape. it is not like someone being jumped on in the street". Until 1991, a married woman's "No" was pretty meaningless unless an offence of violent assault was also involved.

Until the Public Order Act 1994 were judges were required to warn juries on the dangers of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of complainants, although they still can at their discretion (Rape is a "special" a crime where corroboration is normally unobtainable) A judge (Sutcliffe) infamously warned a jury in 1976 that "It is well known that women in particular and small boys are liable to be untruthful and invent stories" Such a comment from a member of the judiciary with no basis in fact was contemptible.
____
Now--were you aware of any of these developments?

Do you think that they complete the process of building criminal statutes that maxmise justice (while still sanctifying legal rights and preserving civil liberties as much as possible) so that there is no more to be done?

Or are you really not all that bothered?

 

[terrekain]

I have to wonder why the authorities in California suddenly decided to get Polanski arrested after all this time.

He filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the state of California was no longer pursuing him.

It was a phony request, pure theater, meant to satisfy his supporters by pretending he had the upper hand.

The reality was that he was being pursued for decades so, of course, the LA DA called his bluff [again].

Ultimately, the reason for Polanski's capture isn't that the DA began to pursue him (they always have), but that Polanski was arrogant enough to telegraph his movements to the world by announcing his presence in the film festival.

In a word: hubris.

Given the state of finances in the city and state, I wonder if that has anything to do with the timing? Would a protracted trial be a financial windfall for the city of Los Angeles or would they go more bankrupt with all the security that would be required? Was the financial aspect even a factor in the timing? Who knows... But I'm definitely for sending him back to face the sentence. For all anybody knows, the Judge may say that the original plea deal is valid.

This fiscal year's budgetary concerns are not an issue; to put it plainly, the LA DA is already staffed and this is part of their job. All they did was send out a notice for his extradition. The extradition process will be monitored for the most part, but the tussle/litigation is mostly between Polanki's lawyers and the Swiss.

To put it plainly: No, you won't be able to get Polanski off the hook using California's fiscal woes. In fact, California has a legal obligation to see this through so everything that follows might as well be considered a sunk cost.

 

[zooterkin]

Who cares. He fled justice before there could even be a proper trial (that's a crime too), lock him up.

I thought there had been a trial, it was only sentencing that remained.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Do you have evidence that was the only reason they accepted the deal?

No.

Why?

 

[zooterkin]

Ultimately, the reason for Polanski's capture isn't that the DA began to pursue him (they always have), but that Polanski was arrogant enough to telegraph his movements to the world by announcing his presence in the film festival.

Have there also been changes in extradition agreements? There certainly have between the USA and the UK.

 

[terrekain]

Have there also been changes in extradition agreements? There certainly have between the USA and the UK.

If you're asking whether there are any alterations which may have prompted this "sudden" arrest, the answer is "No".

Again, the LA DA simply "reminded" the Swiss that they were treaty-bound to apprehend Polanski and extradite him to the US.

At greater issue is how Polanski's friends in Washington failed to warn him (there are rumors that the DA short-circuited some federal officials to prevent tripping his network) or whether Polanski simply ignored warnings believing he was safe.

 

[terrekain]

I thought there had been a trial, it was only sentencing that remained.

There was no trial.

Polanski pled guilty.

 

[Ziggurat]

I thought there had been a trial, it was only sentencing that remained.

There was no trial because he pled guilty, but he was convicted before he fled.

 

[Ziggurat]

Here's a really funny parody of the defense of Polanski:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/09/polanski.php

"Maybe you aren't aware -- and really, thanks to author Robert Harris for pointing this out in today's New York Times --that "Mr. Polanski's own young children, to whom he is a doting father, want him home. " If you had known that, surely you would have forgiven him by now. If he's not around to raise his kids, who would prevent them from getting raped by good people?"

 

[johnny karate]

That sounds familiar, I suspect that was presented in the documentary that I saw some time ago.

What I find interesting about the chronology of events described in that article, and this seems to be borne out by every other source I've seen, is that neither Polanski nor his lawyers were aware of any alleged judicial malfeasance upon Polanski's flight from justice. Basically, he found out he might get a stiffer sentence than he expected, so he skipped town. Which makes any argument that the judge was behaving inappropriately nothing more than an after the fact rationalization.

 

[terrekain]

No.

Why?

The "plea deal" is fanciful but ultimately irrelevant.

It made for good theater in Polanski's hit job "documentary", but documentary's are inadmissable as evidence in a court of law.

At least, that's the way it is in American courts of law; you can't "re-enact" something on a multi-million dollar movie, then enter it into the record as "evidence" that something happened.

Ultimately, it's irrelevant whether Polanski had (or thought he had) a plea deal, because the contemporary record demonstrates that no plea deal occurred.

The judge never had the opportunity to "accept" Polanski's supposed "plea deal" because he never showed up for sentencing.

End of story.

 

[terrekain]

What I find interesting about the chronology of events described in that article, and this seems to be borne out by every other source I've seen, is that neither Polanski nor his lawyers were aware of any alleged judicial malfeasance upon Polanski's flight from justice. Basically, he found out he might get a stiffer sentence than he expected, so he skipped town. Which makes any argument that the judge was behaving inappropriately nothing more than an after the fact rationalization.

That's exactly what it is.

Judges don't have to accept plea deals between defendants and prosecutors. If the judge thinks that the punishment is too light he can sentence the defendant to maximum time.

Unbeknownst to some Americans, he can even "overrule" a jury's decision to convict or acquit. Not "overrule" of course, because the jury never has priority in a court anyway; they're an aide to help a judge make a decision although it is very rare for a judge to go against the jury.

 

[Ziggurat]

Unbeknownst to some Americans, he can even "overrule" a jury's decision to convict or acquit. Not "overrule" of course, because the jury never has priority in a court anyway; they're an aide to help a judge make a decision although it is very rare for a judge to go against the jury.

I believe that a judge can acquit on his own, but cannot convict on his own. My understanding is that he can throw out a jury's acquittal, but must hold a new trial if he wants to secure a conviction, and the conviction still needs to come from a jury.

 

[zooterkin]

There was no trial.

Polanski pled guilty.

Ok, so that doesn't count as a trial, per se. But it's wrong of GreyIce to say that Polanski fled before a proper trial, since there wasn't going to be one.

 

[terrekain]

Well, he clearly has lied at least once; how are we to tell which time, though?

This was actually prompted by Polanski's arrest.

The lawyer made statements in the documentary contrary to where the contemporary record leads and he set himself up for perjury.

It's not a crime to lie in public or in a documentary (for the most part).

However, it is a serious crime in the United States to place your hand on the bible, swear an oath to tell the truth and lie in a court of law.

As long as Polanski was free, this lawyer was free to continue lying and collect his dues from Polanski.

But now Polanski has been caught and will potentially be extradited to the United States.

This changes everything.

The lawyer will potentially (almost certainly) be subpoenaed in the appeals court and his history of dealings with Polanski and his "recollections" will be measured against the record.

He's a lawyer.

He knows better than to be caught committing perjury in an American court.

His best course of action is to fess up now rather than go to jail later.

And that's exactly what he did.

 

[LostAngeles]

Since when does having consensual sex prior to being raped affect the rape case?

And if you are given an incapacitating drug, by the rapist, prior to being raped, how does that mitigate the crime?

I can see that the prosecution not wanting to drag the girl through those details, but I can't see that affecting the legal standing of rape.

Even if true, this is after she was plied with alcohol and quaaludes.

Not to mention, the "the slut asked for it" argument doesn't wash.

Skeptic Guy, this is your answer. While varwoche is both legally and morally correct, however, juries don't always see it that way.