Looks like Polanski will get away again.

[Skeptic Guy]

What Polanski plead to was unlawful sex with a minor, a charge which is synonymous under California law with statutory rape. What he was actually guilty of was rape. We can mince words if we want, but if you drug a girl/woman and force yourself on her after she has said "no", it's rape.

David Wells, the Deputy District Attorney at the time, recanted his statement he made in the movie Polanski: Wanted and Desired, and said he did NOT coach the judge on a longer sentence. So I don't think there was any statement prior to the fact that the judge was going to change anything, at least what I have been able to find.

I believe that I read in other threads about this topic that it is not unheard of for a judge to not go along with a sentencing recommendation from the prosecution. Not that I have evidence he was going to do this in this case, but you don't have the right to run away if you end up not liking your sentence.

The man should come back to the US and face the music.

 

[Typicallucas]

Everybody: please refrain from using the term "rape" and use "sexual assault" instead. That way we can avoid attempts to mire the issue with semantic nitpicking.

I'm full of things to say today. People, use the word "rape" if you want. Everyone else stop your semantic nitpicking.

It isn't as though the word rape is being bandied about like "Can you believe the auto mechanic charged me this much? I got totally raped!"

Don't let the vocabulary police keep you down!

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Then what was the request to conclude the trial in absentia for? In any case, that argument makes the question "did he do his time" all the more poignant - and that's what the Swiss refusal to extradite is all about.

They didn't request a trial in absentia, they requested sentencing in absentia.

I'm not sure how that makes the "did he do his time" question more poignant. In fact, logically, it seems to completely contradict both him and the Swiss reasoning against extradition. If his lawyers requested that he be sentenced in absentia, then they are admitting that he was never sentenced. If he was never sentenced, then how can the Swiss possibly dispute whether he "served his time"??

Requesting sentencing in absentia also implies that they accept that Polanski is guilty.

 

[Pardalis]

I don't know what the fascination is with the word "rape". Some forumites here go through the most amazing mental gymnastics to justify using the term "rape", unqualified, to describe what Polanski did, and they use it at every possible opportunity.

What do you call sex with a child again?

 

[ddt]

Is there any reason why both the forum members and the DA cannot refer to him as a "self-admitted statutory rapist."

The DA said: "this criminal, this fugitive, this child rapist." You're twisting his words. Or you're using the wrong tense/mode of verb. And even then, what does it add when the DA uses those words?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What Polanski plead to was unlawful sex with a minor, a charge which is synonymous under California law with statutory rape. What he was actually guilty of was rape. We can mince words if we want, but if you drug a girl/woman and force yourself on her after she has said "no", it's rape.

This isn't skepticism or rationality, this is deliberate ignorance and deliberate spin.

Saying Polanski "drugged her" could be forgiven as an error if you did it once, since it's technically accurate but misleading.

Saying Polanski "raped her" could be forgiven as an error if you did it once, since you might have dropped the vital word "statutorily" by accident, and might not have known that there is no such offence on the California books.

Saying that she said "no" could be forgiven as an error if you did it once, since plenty of idiots have claimed it as a fact when it's merely an unsupported and contested allegation, so you could have been forgiven for thinking that it was actually an established and agreed-upon fact.

However insisting on running all of these errors together, after you have been corrected once already, indicates to me that you're not interested in truth or accuracy.

 

[ddt]

David Wells, the Deputy District Attorney at the time, recanted his statement he made in the movie Polanski: Wanted and Desired, and said he did NOT coach the judge on a longer sentence.

Wells was not the DA on the Polanski case. That was Gunson.

Wells indeed recanted the statement that he showed the judge the Oktoberfest photos and coached on a longer sentence. Upon recanting, he said that he gave the photos to a bailiff who in turn gave them to the judge.

Why he made those statements is a mystery. Has he already been censured by the bar for that? Isn't those lies also interfering with an ongoing case?

So I don't think there was any statement prior to the fact that the judge was going to change anything, at least what I have been able to find.

Polanski's lawyers claim they heard the judge wanted hm in prison and subsequently deported.

I believe that I read in other threads about this topic that it is not unheard of for a judge to not go along with a sentencing recommendation from the prosecution. Not that I have evidence he was going to do this in this case, but you don't have the right to run away if you end up not liking your sentence.

Of course not. But then the US should show Switzerland that everything went fine and dandy. The whole decades-long discussion shows that there have been quite some irregularities going on at the LA court in 1977.

 

[applecorped]

What do you call sex with a child again?

Well, it wasn't rape rape.

 

[ddt]

They didn't request a trial in absentia, they requested sentencing in absentia.

I'm not sure how that makes the "did he do his time" question more poignant. In fact, logically, it seems to completely contradict both him and the Swiss reasoning against extradition. If his lawyers requested that he be sentenced in absentia, then they are admitting that he was never sentenced. If he was never sentenced, then how can the Swiss possibly dispute whether he "served his time"??

See my ETA. The hearing where Gunson is alleged to have testified that the judge promised at the September 19, 1977 meeting to Polanski that the 90-day psych stint in prison was to be the whole sentence, took place January 26 and was a result - or at least postdated the trial where Polanski asked for the sentencing in absentia, which took place January 15.

 

[Checkmite]

There is one uncontested fact, however. Polanski had sex with a kid.

Some states - mine, for instance - call that particular offense 'statutory rape'; others - such as California - call the same offense 'unlawful sex with a minor'. But whatever this or that particular state may decide to label the same offense, they all agree on one very specific thing: SEX + WITH A KID = NO!

Polanski had sex with a kid; you are free to call him whatever your particular state calls adults who have sex with kids, and all labels are just as valid. Frothing about how it's unfair to call Polanski a rapist based solely on the fact that the California penal code has a different specific name for that offense is a deliberate attempt to muddy the water. Chances are, they probably had to use that terminology because they figured someone like Kevin Lowe, only a lawyer, would come along and try to mind-screw the jury into thinking the issue is about whether the word rape "describes the event accurately" when the point is that it's sex with a kid that's wrong and that's what the defendant needs to go to jail for.

Now that's done, and we can move on.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

See my ETA. The hearing where Gunson is alleged to have testified that the judge promised at the September 19, 1977 meeting to Polanski that the 90-day psych stint in prison was to be the whole sentence, took place January 26 and was a result - or at least postdated the trial where Polanski asked for the sentencing in absentia, which took place January 15.

I saw that, but it is utterly irrelevant. Whether or not the judge informally told Polanski he would only have to serve 45-days, he never sentenced him, because Polanski fled.

This also strikes me as more contradiction on the part of Polanski, and even more strangeness to the Swiss decision. His justification for fleeing was that the judge was going to sentence him to more than 45 days. Now that he is about to be extradited, he's trying to claim that he "served his time" because the judge was only going to sentence him to 45 days. So which is it? And if the judge wasn't going to sentence him to more time, then why did he jump bail?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

There is one uncontested fact, however. Polanski had sex with a kid.

Some states - mine, for instance - call that particular offense 'statutory rape'; others - such as California - call the same offense 'unlawful sex with a minor'. But whatever this or that particular state may decide to label the same offense, they all agree on one very specific thing: SEX + WITH A KID = NO!

Polanski had sex with a kid; you are free to call him whatever your particular state calls adults who have sex with kids, and all labels are just as valid. Frothing about how it's unfair to call Polanski a rapist based solely on the fact that the California penal code has a different specific name for that offense is a deliberate attempt to muddy the water.

That makes sense... using a term you know is incorrect ("statutory rape") and then deciding that it would be even more fun to illegitimately drop the vital qualifier and just call it "rape" is just fine. Correcting the people who pull that stunt is "a deliberate attempt to muddy the water".

Chances are, they probably had to use that terminology because they figured someone like Kevin Lowe, only a lawyer, would come along and try to mind-screw the jury into thinking the issue is about whether the word rape "describes the event accurately" when the point is that it's sex with a kid that's wrong and that's what the defendant needs to go to jail for.

Now that's done, and we can move on.

I think it's the other way around. People who want to exaggerate the seriousness of what Polanski did (which was serious enough in and of itself) love to cash in on the associations of the word "rape". They love the sound of the word "rape" so much they can't stop saying it, and if you tell them they aren't allowed say "rape" any more they react like a toddler who has had its favourite rattle taken away.

"Unlawful sex with a minor who may or may not have consented, and was certainly already sexually active" describes exactly the same event in more factual terms, but it's not nearly as much fun for them to say.

 

[applecorped]

"Unlawful sex with a minor who may or may not have consented, and was certainly already sexually active" describes exactly the same event in more factual terms, but it's not nearly as much fun for them to say.

Why does it matter whether she was active? Tainting the well?

 

[Pardalis]

People who want to exaggerate the seriousness of what Polanski did (which was serious enough in and of itself)

And what would you call it (what he did)?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Why does it matter whether she was active? Tainting the well?

I think it's relevant in weighing up the degree of plausibility in Polanski's claim that they had consensual, casual sex. Most thirteen year olds are not sexually active and are thus highly unlikely to have casual sex with anyone.

The girl in question was already engaging in recreational sex before the incident with Polanski, so in my view that fact moves Polanski's story that they had consensual, casual sex from "very, very unlikely to be true" to "improbable, but who knows?".

If she was not already sexually active I'd have said that Polanski's story was a almost certainly a load of old cobblers. As it is, I'm not sure beyond reasonable doubt that his story isn't the more accurate one.

 

[Pardalis]

The girl in question was already engaging in recreational sex before the incident with Polanski, so in my view that fact moves Polanski's story that they had consensual, casual sex from "very, very unlikely to be true" to "improbable, but who knows?".

It doesn't really matter, as Polanski was the only adult party involved, which means it was his moral and legal responsibility not to engage the 13 year old in any sexual endeavours, recreational or otherwise.

 

[Roadtoad]

Whether or not it was consensual sex, it's illegal in California for an adult to have sex with a minor, period. She was under the age of 18, (way under), and what she wants is, factually, irrelevant.

Polanski may have skipped out prior to sentencing, but there was a plea deal, and he broke it. That the US dropped the ball on this indicates a degree of incompetence on the part of the US Department of Justice, the US Department of State, and the AG's office. Sorry, we blew it, so he walks.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It doesn't really matter, as Polanski was the only adult party involved, which means it was his moral and legal responsibility not to engage the 13 year old in any sexual endeavours, recreational or otherwise.

This is very much like a five year old interrupting a high school maths lesson by walking in and shouting "two plus two is four!".

The five year old is perfectly correct, and his statement is not completely irrelevant to the context. However at the same time what the five year old is saying is not news to anyone, and is not helpful.

 

[Checkmite]

That makes sense... using a term you know is incorrect ("statutory rape") and then deciding that it would be even more fun to illegitimately drop the vital qualifier and just call it "rape" is just fine. Correcting the people who pull that stunt is "a deliberate attempt to muddy the water".



I think it's the other way around. People who want to exaggerate the seriousness of what Polanski did (which was serious enough in and of itself) love to cash in on the associations of the word "rape". They love the sound of the word "rape" so much they can't stop saying it, and if you tell them they aren't allowed say "rape" any more they react like a toddler who has had its favourite rattle taken away.

See this is what I'm talk about. The entire point of the section you just quoted was (I repeat), SEX + WITH A KID = NO!; yet even though you quoted the whole thing, you chose to zero in on a single word and pretend the rest wasn't even there.

If you don't want to call it rape, statutory rape, or whatever other terms you deem too emotionally loaded, that's perfectly fine - feel free not to do so.

Polanski was found guilty of having sex with a kid. What he did was against the law - EVEN IF he didn't use drugs, EVEN IF the kid had been sexual active previously. The fact that a house has been left unlocked doesn't give you leave to walk in and take whatever you want. Polanski = 40-something adult, victim = 13-year-old kid; there's no state in the US where that's okay even if it's not called statutory rape.

 

[Pardalis]

This is very much like a five year old interrupting a high school maths lesson by walking in and shouting "two plus two is four!".

No it's not. We're talking about sex here.

The five year old is perfectly correct, and his statement is not completely irrelevant to the context. However at the same time what the five year old is saying is not news to anyone, and is not helpful.

A precocious 13 year old girl is still a 13 year old girl. If anything, this means he took advantage even more of the situation.

The fact that some girls are more promiscuous at an early age doesn't give you a free card to engage in sexual relations with them, it should actually be a red flag to avoid them.