Looks like Polanski will get away again.

Ziggurat said:
It's sealed, so obviously I don't. Neither do you. Do you have a point? I mean, aside from defending a pedophile.
Click to expand...

yes it was needed by the swiss authorities and their request got denied. so they were not able to follow the extradite request.

swiss authorities have delivered a lot secret information that the USA requested and needed, now we requested data and it got denied, what do you expect? we trust your words blindly?
 
Last edited:
DC said:
yes it was needed by the swiss authorities and their request got denied. so they were not able to follow the extradite request.

swiss authorities have delivered a lot secret information that the USA requested and needed, now we requested data and it got denied, what do you expect? we trust your words blindly?
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't "needed". That someone requests, or even demands, something does not mean they "needed" it.
 
jimtron said:
Here's a question I have for everyone: in your view, what would have been appropriate punishment for Polanski (for sex with Geimer, not for fleeing)?
Click to expand...

Regardless of what I would like him to get for what he did, there was a deal made that everyone agreed to, so that's what he should get.

It irks the hell out of me that people will not live up to the agreements they make.
 
lionking said:
Two years minimum. Certainly not 42 days. What do you think?
Click to expand...

I really don't know how much time he deserves/deserved (I'm not trying to dodge the question, it's just that I don't know how to calculate this kind of thing). The victim's view is very relevant to me (though maybe less relevant legally speaking), and apparently the victim didn't want him to do time in prison. In my opinion it would not have been unreasonable if Polanski got what was agreed to by the prosecution, defense, and judge in the plea bargain.
 
For crying out loud, there was no agreement, and Polanski acknowledged as much.

And the victim's views are irrevelent. There are any number of "born again" victims willing to forgive anything. Should those offenders go free?
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
For crying out loud, there was no agreement, and Polanski acknowledged as much.
Click to expand...

Could you provide evidence of Polanski's acknowledgment of that please?


And the victim's views are irrevelent. There are any number of "born again" victims willing to forgive anything. Should those offenders go free?
Click to expand...
Maybe in some cases--have any other examples? The victim's views on what the perp should get may be somewhat or entirely irrelevant to the court, but they're very relevant to me (not just in this case, but potentially in any case.)

Regarding the "agreement" about sentencing, from the New York Times (note that Gunson is the prosecuting attorney):
Lawyers for Mr. Polanski have argued that he should not be extradited, because Judge Rittenband had promised — and Mr. Gunson affirmed in his sealed testimony — to sentence him to no more than 90 days in jail...
Click to expand...
eta: More about the plea agreement from the LA Times:

Before he became a fugitive, a grand jury indicted Polanski, then 43, on six felonies, including rape and sodomy, for an assault on a 13-year-old girl. Prosecutors agreed to a plea deal because the victim's family did not want to subject her to the trauma of testifying at trial.

Under the terms of the deal, Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful intercourse with a minor in exchange for the other charges being dismissed. He agreed that Judge Laurence Rittenband would determine the sentence. Rittenband sent the filmmaker to the prison in Chino for a 90-day "diagnostic evaluation" that he said would "enable the Court to reach a fair and just decision."

Prison officials released Polanski after 42 days and advised the judge that testing indicated his sentence should not include additional prison time. Rittenband labeled the prison report "a whitewash" and said he planned to send Polanski back to prison for an additional 48 days if he voluntarily agreed to deportation. Informed of this by his attorney, Polanski left the country, seeking refuge in France.
Click to expand...
The misconduct allegations would rest on interviews in a 2008 HBO documentary -- "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" -- in which the original prosecutor, retired Deputy Dist. Atty. Roger Gunson, and defense attorney Douglas Dalton detailed improper and unethical conduct by the judge, who died in 1993.

The men said in the film and reiterated in court declarations this year that Rittenband improperly sent Polanski to Chino for the purpose of punishment rather than testing. The judge, they said, had agreed to set Polanski free after that stay, but reneged and decided to imprison the director again at his official sentencing in what amounted to a second round of punishment.

"I told Judge Rittenband that the diagnostic study was not designed to be used as a sentence, but [he] said . . . he was going to do it anyway," Gunson wrote in an August declaration in appellate court.

In the documentary, retired L.A. County prosecutor David Wells recalled giving Rittenband the idea of using the diagnostic testing as punishment during backroom conversations about the case. Wells recanted that statement Wednesday.

Polanski's attorneys presented evidence of misconduct by Rittenband and Wells to the Superior Court's supervising criminal judge, Peter Espinoza, last year, but he refused to consider their arguments because the defendant was still a fugitive. Espinoza, who could preside over Polanski's case in the future, noted, however, that he found evidence of "substantial . . . misconduct."
Click to expand...
Samantha Geimer, now a married mother living in Hawaii, has repeatedly said Polanski has been punished enough and demanded that the case be dropped.
Click to expand...
The plea agreement called for the judge to decide punishment based on the arguments of attorneys and a probation officer's report. That report recommended no time behind bars...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea12.html

The plea bargain makes it crystal that the plea is not binding on the court.As Polanski shot through before the final determination of the court, there was simply no agreement that meant anything.
Click to expand...

I agree that the plea bargain is not binding, but that doesn't mean it was right for the judge to renege. According to the prosecutor and several others (not counting the defense), the judge engaged in misconduct.

ETA, from Time:

Breaking years of silence, Polanski's defense attorney Douglas Dalton and the district attorney Roger Gunson detail the strange manner in which the case proceeded. Two court-appointed psychiatrists examined Polanski and determined that he was not a mentally deranged sex offender. Both attorneys and the victim argued for a plea bargain, but Rittenband, concerned with appearing soft on crime, sent Polanski to Chino State Penitentiary to undergo another 90-day evaluation period. On several occasions, Rittenband persuaded the attorneys to put on a show for the media, Dalton and Gunson say, arguing their sides even though the judge had already told them his plans in chambers. The attorneys also cite various times in which Rittenband promised to do one thing and then changed his mind.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Whichever way you dice it, 45 days in manifestly inadequate for Polanski's offences, and I believe that the judge was right, both legally and morally, to re-consider his position.

But, please, no more of "Polanski served his time". This is not correct.
 
lionking said:
Whichever way you dice it, 45 days in manifestly inadequate for Polanski's offences...
Click to expand...

According to you, but not according to the victim and attorneys who agreed to the plea bargain. And from the beginning Geimer didn't want Polanski to go to prison. So not everyone agrees with you on this point.

...and I believe that the judge was right, both legally and morally, to re-consider his position.
Click to expand...
He had a right to reconsider his opinion, but he didn't have a right to engage in misconduct.

But, please, no more of "Polanski served his time". This is not correct.
Click to expand...
If you're referring to me, I don't recall ever saying that.
 
Last edited:
ZirconBlue said:
No, it wasn't "needed". That someone requests, or even demands, something does not mean they "needed" it.
Click to expand...

its the swiss authorities that decide what they need and what not. and yes they needed that document.
 
jimtron said:
Here's a question I have for everyone: in your view, what would have been appropriate punishment for Polanski (for sex with Geimer, not for fleeing)?
Click to expand...

For sex with her 42 days is on the low side of tolerable for my tastes - you could give him a couple more months and it wouldn't offend me. He should also be fined and/or given extra jail time for providing a minor with alcohol and one third of a quaalude, since those are illegal acts as well.

If he'd done everything he was accused of, ten years would be a good start. However we know with a very high degree of certainty that he didn't.

The victim made a false statement to police, but she's too young to prosecute so she skates on that one. If it turned out an adult coached her or was otherwise aware that her complaint was at least partially false, that person should get a few years at least and also get sued by Polanski.
 
jimtron said:
Here's a question I have for everyone: in your view, what would have been appropriate punishment for Polanski (for sex with Geimer, not for fleeing)?
Click to expand...
Ten years in prison, no parole and when he was released kicked out of America. He got away with drugging and raping a 13 year old girl. If I had done what he did I'd have received 20 years, ostrasized for the rest of my life and forced to live far away from children forever and I'd deserve every bit of pain it caused me. If I committed suicide I'd deserve to have my grave spat on.

My first cousin was molested by her father and this should have been his fate.
 
Last edited:
Cainkane1 said:
Ten years in prison, no parole and when he was released kicked out of America. He got away with drugging and raping a 13 year old girl. If I had done what he did I'd have received 20 years, ostrasized for the rest of my life and forced to live far away from children for the rest of my life and I'd deserve every bit of pain it caused me.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but that indeed is one legal problem with the case. Lawrence Silver, Samantha Geimer's lawyer, told on Larry King (earlier quoted in this thread) that Judge Rittenband in chambers said to Polanski that he had the choice: he'd sentence Polanski to the 48 days the psych evaluation had fallen short if he'd agree to "self-deport"; else he'd sentence him to 50 years.

However, Rittenband was a California state judge and deportation is a federal issue, so Rittenband was out of his remit there. He could never have sentenced Polanski to deportation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom