Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[terrekain]

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.

Yes, sorry.

For some reason, I think I was thinking about a judge when he was also a finder of fact. But in such a case, there is no jury to overrule.

Ultimately, though, the judge had the legal perogative to sentence Polanski as he saw fit, regardless of what Polanski says.

 

[Segnosaur]

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

This was actually prompted by Polanski's arrest.
...
As long as Polanski was free, this lawyer was free to continue lying and collect his dues from Polanski.
...
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.

Ummm.... are we talking about the same person? The lawer that said he was lying was a forper prosecutor, NOT one of Polanski's laywers. (Not sure why he would be 'collecting his dues' from Polanski.)

 

[dudalb]

Most people are just calling her out on her being just plain wrong.
There are some pretty virulent anti-semites there, but their writing style so similar that I suspect an army of sock puppets at work.

I can imagine someone making the mistake of defending Polanski initially. Without looking too deep into the case.
Long ago, May not have known her age. Victim doesn't want him to go to jail and has forgiven him. Traumatic childhood. Wife killed. Great director. He's old and fragile. Etc.

But once you look into the case, his behaviour is inexcusable. She should acknowledge that. Her stance defies all logic and even an idiot can see it.

BUt the "he should be let off the hook because he is a talented director" defense is the worst of all.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Thanks, LA. That's where I understand the media was going with the story at the time. I wouldn't want to put the victim through that kind of experience.

 

[terrekain]

Ummm.... are we talking about the same person? The lawer that said he was lying was a forper prosecutor, NOT one of Polanski's laywers. (Not sure why he would be 'collecting his dues' from Polanski.)

We are.

Geimer wasn't the only person this millionaire megolomaniac "settled" with for an unspecified amount.

And Wells didn't lie about abetting misconduct out of the goodness of his heart. Nor did he help Polanski smear a deceased judge because he has a conscience.

At any rate, Wells isn't going to be investigated, his record and finances won't have to be subpeonaed, and he won't risk going to prison for perjury.

The star witness for Polanski's appeal has been neutered.

Polanski's only hope now is to successfully fight the extradition.

If he's gets extradited to the United States, it's over.

That's the way it's always been, contrary to what he's led his fans to believe.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

No need for a trial. He pleaded guilty, then fled before he was sentenced. He's already convicted, albeit of the very lowest charges that can be associated with the incident in question. All that remains is to bring him back, sentence him for the crime of which he is already convicted, and carry out that sentence.

 

[headscratcher4]

I should know this but I don't. Is there an additional charge and punishment that can be assessed for flight?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

What “physical resistance” would you expect a 13-year-old girl, incapacitated by alcohol and quaaludes, to be able to make against a man who is much bigger and stronger than she is?

 

[Skeptic]

"But it's been 32 years!" excuse might make sense if someone commits a crime, it is for some reason not investigated or reported, and 32 years later some prosecutor decides to reopen the case. (Whether it does in fact make sense depends on the magnitude of the original crime.)

When it is used to defend someone who caused the 32 year delay in the first place by fleeing from justice all that time, it is like asking for mercy for a man who killed his parents because he's an orphan.

 

[pgwenthold]

Let's see:

You have just been convicted of a crime. For the sake of argument, call it tax evasion. For sentancing, you are given the option of going to jail for 5 years, losing all your freedom and significantly ruining any chance of any reasonable life, or having to move to France for 30 years, where you are free to do whatever you want, and get visited by whomever you wish anytime, and hang out on the beaches in Nice. Which do you chose?

OK, that's not close. How short would the jail sentance have to be to make that the more reasonable option? 1 month? 1 year? Definately not a year - I'm going to France, baby!

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Rape /= Tax Evasion

 

[pgwenthold]

Rape /= Tax Evasion

No. I would assume that the penalty for rape would be much worse. In which case, living in France is an even better option, and less comparable to the jail sentance.

 

[GreyICE]

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.

Actually, he fled because they threw out the plea bargain. Since in the absence of a plea bargain the alternative is a trial, there most certainly WAS going to be a trial.

It was not going to go well for the admitted rapist.

Also, there were a host of other potential charges he could have been tried on, related to possession of illegal narcotics, drugging someone with those narcotics against their will, assault, battery, and so on and so forth.

As a prosecutor, yes, I would have thrown the book at him unapologetically.

This ain't Jean Valjean here. He raped a 13 year old girl, in every possible sense of the word. He is a disgusting human being, and deserves every second of the time he will spend in prison.

I rarely agree with Skeptic, but this time he's right - the person who flees from justice does not deserve clemancy because he was really good at it. Most certainly not for rape. There's a disgusting habit that people in this country have of trivializing rape, and quite frankly, I've seen it on these boards more than once. And it's sick.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

Actually, he fled because they threw out the plea bargain. Since in the absence of a plea bargain the alternative is a trial, there most certainly WAS going to be a trial.

Not sure if that's exactly correct...

After all, the plea agreement was to drop SOME charges in exchange for a plea of guilty on others. That was the nature of the agreement. I do not believe that there were any guarantees for sentencing however. (In fact, the sentencing was supposed to depend in part on a report by psychologists, which was one of the reasons Polanski was initially locked away for about a month.)

So, the plea agreement was not 'thrown out' by the judge back when he was considering a longer sentence, and it is probably still in effect now.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Out of curiousity, in cases where the sentence has been delayed what sentencing guidelines are used. Is the judge supposed to consider the guidelines and precedents in the 70s, or the current ones?

Walt

 

[WildCat]

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.

Excuse me?

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.

Never saw a bible in a court room, but perjury is against the law.

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

What lawyer? What dues? What lies?

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.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[pgwenthold]

So, the plea agreement was not 'thrown out' by the judge back when he was considering a longer sentence, and it is probably still in effect now.

Really? Despite the fact that Polanski bolted the country and skipped out on the sentancing?

I gotta think that implicit in the agreement is that Polanski actually submit to the sentance that has been pronounced. I think it is fair to say that he has not lived up to his part of the agreement, such that the prosecution should not be held to it, either.

Since he plead guilty to "Sex with a minor" he cannot be charged with it again. But he can be put on trial for rape.

 

[GreyICE]

Not sure if that's exactly correct...

After all, the plea agreement was to drop SOME charges in exchange for a plea of guilty on others. That was the nature of the agreement. I do not believe that there were any guarantees for sentencing however. (In fact, the sentencing was supposed to depend in part on a report by psychologists, which was one of the reasons Polanski was initially locked away for about a month.)

So, the plea agreement was not 'thrown out' by the judge back when he was considering a longer sentence, and it is probably still in effect now.

The agreement is null and void now, and he additionally has new crimes (flight) that he can be accused of. So that should add to it. I happily expect him to die in prison, and am only sad that it took this long to get him there.

As for the plea bargain, yes, it's possible that they could have made a new one if the judge altered some terms (and thus nullified the original agreement).

P.S. I don't buy that he was suffering from some result of grief. I've seen grief do many strange things. I don't buy that it makes one rape a 13 year old girl.

 

[Vortigern99]

On closer examination of the available facts, I've reversed my original opinion, and I now accord with the majority here that Polanski needs to be extradited and sentenced for the crime to which he has already pleaded guilty.

My initial position was that 30 years of self-imposed exile, a substantial monetary settlement to the victim, and 45 days of incarceration for the purposes of psychiatric evaluation constituted sufficient punishment. I now realize and acknowledge that these punitive measures, such as they are, were not ordered by a criminal court. No one is above or beneath the law, and Polanski must be returned to California to receive sentencing.

Thanks to all who have posted here and allowed me to more thoroughly examine the facts of the case.

 

[johnny karate]

Actually, he fled because they threw out the plea bargain. Since in the absence of a plea bargain the alternative is a trial, there most certainly WAS going to be a trial.

The plea bargain was not thrown out and there was not going to be a trial. The plea bargain did not specify the parameters of sentencing, and Polanski assumed the time he served for his psychological evaluation would be the only punitive measure he would face. On the eve of his actual sentencing, his lawyers got wind that Polanski would possibly be facing more severe punishment, so Polanski ran away.