Jump to content


Photo

Roman Polanski is a Rapist


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#31 azwestdevil72

azwestdevil72

    Gotcha Jacket Dancer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona

Posted 23 October 2009 - 02:13 PM

he raped a child

no matter how much time passes

it will never be ok

I don't care if that grown up child said it's ok

it will never be ok

he drugged and raped a child

it will never be ok


Rape is rape and fleeing the country is fleeing the country, Eff this dude, if he was anyone else, book em', even if it was somewhat remotely consensual or whatever, he did settle out of court with her or something convoluted and pointless, but he didn't serve his time and he fleed the country to avoid his charges, fucking wuss. (I may or may not flee the country, but I wouldn't live a public lifestyle taunting the US or any government.)

Agreed 100%.

And he fucking didn't serve his time for the crime he committed. He's a fucking doucheface who should go to jail.

im not particularly in the mood to debate the merits of sending a 76 year old man to jail for something he did 32 years ago that was very obviously wrong and despicable, but I think there should be a distinction made on him "serving his time". He did in fact serve his time as agreed upon by the courts at the time. He was scheduled to serve 90 days under psychiatric evaluation, and was released early after 42 days. He signed a plea agreement that said he would undergo the evaluation, and there was even a provision allowing him to first travel overseas to finish his current project, and in return he would have 5 of the 6 charges dropped against him, with an expected period of probation after release. Despite the probation officer, examining psychiatrist and the victim herself all recommending against jail time, the judge and the district attorney renegged on the deal and decided to send him back to prison, then order him deported. in other words, there was some sweetheart celebrity treatment here by the state at the time, basically dropping all the charges and letting him freely leave the country before his jail term, and an early release, which frankly shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who follows any celebrity trial. i think the original deal was awful generous to Mr. Polanski, but that falls on the attorneys. The fact that the court basically voided the plea deal to the vocal arguments of everyone else involved is an epic bungling of the legal system at the time. either they should have had the balls to prosecute him to a harsher penalty and not offered the deal, or they should have abided by the terms of the deal itself. Polanski essentially fled the US to avoid jail time of questionable legality. I think it's disingenuous to say he didn't serve his time. He certainly shouldn't have fled, but there's just so much done wrong on each side of this case.

They had the victim on Larry King a few weeks ago, and she seemed to look at the whole thing rather realistically, I thought. She basically said that Polanski did a really terrible thing, but the fact of the matter was that he served his time, she was amicable to the plea bargain, and still the judge decided that he should return to jail despite protests from everyone involved, because the judge was concerned about how he would be portrayed in the media. She said she didn't think he should be sent to prison at this point, as he served the time originally agreed upon and had settled the monetary part of the case, and has been a model citizen since then (aside from fleeing the US, but again, there were reasons for that). While my personal view is that Polanski probably should have been in prison for at least a few years for what he did, that should have been done to start with and not 32 years later trapping the director in a "gotcha!" sting operation to bring him up on charges that are now rather questionable to begin with.

so yeah, is the dude rather scummy? definitely. is that the heart of the issue of him being arrested this time? no.


1. Polanski did not serve time for the crime of raping a child. The 42 days were part of the court-ordered 90 days for a psyche evaluation, to determine competency, which is standard practice. The actual sentence was not imposed, because Polanski fled before it could be.

2. The fact the victim recommended time served 32 years ago (or even today, for that matter) is irrelevant. At the time, the victim was a minor, and legally has no say. Many victims of molestation will not prosecute out of fear, or even a sort of "Stockholm syndrome" reason. Society should not burden a victim with the decision to prosecute high crimes such as this, to begin with.

3. A DA can offer whatever sweet deal S\He wants, but the simple fact is that it is up to the judge to impose sentence. A judge is not legally bound by any plea agreement a DA makes with the Defense. Such an agreement is merely a recommendation by the DA upon sentencing.

4. Yes, the main reason he was apprehended for was fleeing justice. But why did he flee? He fled to avoid sentencing for having raped a minor, and the warrant was then issued for his arrest.

5. The Justice System, indeed society, has a responsibility and obligation to carry out justice, regardless whether the crime of rape was 30 days or 30 years ago, and to say collectively that such crimes will not be tolerated.

6. Age of the defendant, their citizen status, or celebrity should not and has no bearing on carrying out the sentence. Nor should the length of time it has been since he committed the crime, to which he plead guilty, I might add. When Polanski fled 32 years ago, it only postponed sentencing for his raping a child, plus Polanski committed another crime by fleeing the country on top of that. Just because it has been so long, has nothing to do with the fact he broke the law, and must now face the consequences. To allow Polanski to essentially escape justice a second time would only set a bad precedent and encourage more criminals to simply flee the country prior to sentencing.

7. I have absolutely no problem with the "gotcha sting operation" as you call it. How else was he to be captured? France does not extradite, and for 32 years, Polanski has been free to make movies in France, where he was safe from extradition. It was Polanski's own hubris and ego that made it possible to be caught, when he thought he was going to accept a lifetime achievement award.

8.We will never know how many other children Polanski has or has not raped since fleeing US justice, while in France, or any other countries he may have visited. However, playing the law of averages, when a person is sick enough to molest even just one child, the likelihood and potential is there for that person to do it again, especially when that person has wealth and a certain amount of power and celebrity, like Roman Polanski. He may or may not have done anything wrong since, but now that he is in custody, we do know he can't molest any children right now.
  • 0

#32 Jacki O.

Jacki O.

    Princess of Darkness

  • Shizzified
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,739 posts
  • Location:Phat ass Phoenix, AZ

Posted 23 October 2009 - 02:29 PM

valid FACE
  • 0

#33 chalupacabra

chalupacabra

    Shizz Captain

  • Shizzified
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Location:Work time: Scottsdale; Home Time: Tempe

Posted 23 October 2009 - 02:29 PM

3. A DA can offer whatever sweet deal S\He wants, but the simple fact is that it is up to the judge to impose sentence. A judge is not legally bound by any plea agreement a DA makes with the Defense. Such an agreement is merely a recommendation by the DA upon sentencing


Was going to say the same thing. The fact the judge backed out on an agreement might not be "fair" but they can do it, thems the rules. Dude needs to go to jail.
  • 0
Posted Image

CAGEMATCH

stomping on your fingers as you're clinging on to the abyss

#34 azwestdevil72

azwestdevil72

    Gotcha Jacket Dancer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona

Posted 23 October 2009 - 03:40 PM

3. A DA can offer whatever sweet deal S\He wants, but the simple fact is that it is up to the judge to impose sentence. A judge is not legally bound by any plea agreement a DA makes with the Defense. Such an agreement is merely a recommendation by the DA upon sentencing


Was going to say the same thing. The fact the judge backed out on an agreement might not be "fair" but they can do it, thems the rules. Dude needs to go to jail.

Well, judges are allowed to change their minds prior to final verdict. Especially if new facts come to light, or if during the course of the trial or hearing, the defendant seems less than remorseful. Maybe that is the case here.
  • 0

#35 differently biotic

differently biotic

    Seltzer Enthusiast

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,432 posts
  • Location:Tempe

Posted 23 October 2009 - 03:43 PM

can't a judge also over turn the verdict of the jury??? I saw that on Law & Order. hahaha
  • 0

#36 azwestdevil72

azwestdevil72

    Gotcha Jacket Dancer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona

Posted 23 October 2009 - 03:52 PM

can't a judge also over turn the verdict of the jury??? I saw that on Law & Order. hahaha

They can, though I am not sure on what specific grounds. But I think it has to do with a jury coming to a finding that goes against the evidence presented, and came to an unreasonable conclusion. I am not a lawyer or anything, but I think the term is JNOV, which means the judge "sets aside" the verdict of the jury. For example, a guy is clearly video taped killing a person in cold blood during an armed robbery with a lot of eye witnesses, and there is DNA all over the place too, and the jury finds the killer innocent, then that might be a good use of JNOV.

In civil court, judges can also impose punitive damages beyond what is asked for, or reduce them, if a jury awards something unreasonable, too.

*correction, I guess the example I gave is not that accurate. A judge can't find you guilty if you are found innocent, but the judge can still set aside the verdict.
http://en.wikipedia....tanding_verdict
  • 0

#37 thecreeper

thecreeper

    Frank Beer, Defender of the Polyverse

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,580 posts

Posted 23 October 2009 - 03:58 PM

3. A DA can offer whatever sweet deal S\He wants, but the simple fact is that it is up to the judge to impose sentence. A judge is not legally bound by any plea agreement a DA makes with the Defense. Such an agreement is merely a recommendation by the DA upon sentencing.


"As depicted in the recent documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, some believe that judicial and prosecutorial misconduct marred the director's trial. The documentary alleges that now deceased judge Laurence J. Rittenband improperly coordinated with prosecutors, misused the psychiatric observation process as punishment, and went back on the plea agreement reached by Polanski, prosecutors and the victim's family (and which allegedly had consent of the judge as well)."

maybe he does need to go to jail, but it's quite clear at this point that there was some serious misconduct in the trial. that was my only point. he originally wasn't going to jail at all aside from the evaluation as the terms of the plea stated. there's plenty more about this case out there to read about on the internet, as it is a fascinating case of someone committing an awful crime and yet also being a victim in the corruption of our own legal system.

edit: interesting background on the judge in the case: http://www.nytimes.c...ki.3187184.html
  • 0

I broke down and watched Showgirls. Can anyone help me.


#38 azwestdevil72

azwestdevil72

    Gotcha Jacket Dancer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona

Posted 23 October 2009 - 04:12 PM


3. A DA can offer whatever sweet deal S\He wants, but the simple fact is that it is up to the judge to impose sentence. A judge is not legally bound by any plea agreement a DA makes with the Defense. Such an agreement is merely a recommendation by the DA upon sentencing.


"As depicted in the recent documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, some believe that judicial and prosecutorial misconduct marred the director's trial. The documentary alleges that now deceased judge Laurence J. Rittenband improperly coordinated with prosecutors, misused the psychiatric observation process as punishment, and went back on the plea agreement reached by Polanski, prosecutors and the victim's family (and which allegedly had consent of the judge as well)."

maybe he does need to go to jail, but it's quite clear at this point that there was some serious misconduct in the trial. that was my only point. he originally wasn't going to jail at all aside from the evaluation as the terms of the plea stated. there's plenty more about this case out there to read about on the internet, as it is a fascinating case of someone committing an awful crime and yet also being a victim in the corruption of our own legal system.

You raise good point Creeper, and I am no lawyer, but the psychiatric observation process precedes the final ruling. I also question the documentary's argument because it is very easy to simply state such a thing after the judge is already deceased and not around to defend his reasoning. But generally, a court ordered psych eval is used to gather whether someone was in their right mind at the time of the crime. A judge is perfectly in the right to use an evaluation for or against a defendant to determine culpability (in this case, if Polanski was in his right mind and aware of right from wrong), and to decide whether or not the proposed punishment (in this case, additional jail time for Polanski) fits the crime (in this case, raping a minor).

Therefore, I would be inclined to say that the documentary's argument is not valid.
  • 0

#39 Jacki O.

Jacki O.

    Princess of Darkness

  • Shizzified
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,739 posts
  • Location:Phat ass Phoenix, AZ

Posted 23 October 2009 - 04:25 PM

edit: interesting background on the judge in the case: http://www.nytimes.c...ki.3187184.html


god could that article kiss any more Polanski ass?

First that film involves Steven Soderberg who is a signed supporter of Polanksi's

then they attempt to make all sorts of rumored statements about the judge as fact. So someone's son says their dad told them he overheard Rittenberg say he was going to put away polanski for life? And that's supposed to be taken as the truth? That's hearsay. And its kinda shitty they are doing it to a dead man who has no way to defend his actions.

It looks like a lot of PR machines are in the works to get some kind of public sympathy vote for this man by blaming his actions on a corrupt judge and legal system.

Yeah i feel sorry that he got entangled in a corrupt legal system because of committing a heinous crime against a child.

Welcome to America.
  • 0

#40 thecreeper

thecreeper

    Frank Beer, Defender of the Polyverse

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,580 posts

Posted 23 October 2009 - 04:25 PM

Therefore, I would be inclined to say that the documentary's argument is not valid.

wow, disregarding a documentary without seeing it or knowing much more than what i just posted from a synopsis. mindblowing.

i think i'm about done in this thread. this reminds me why arguing on the internet is worthless. everyone is convinced they are right. and no one (including myself) has all the facts.

let's just string the guy up like a pinata and let the victim have some whacks.
  • 0

I broke down and watched Showgirls. Can anyone help me.


#41 Jacki O.

Jacki O.

    Princess of Darkness

  • Shizzified
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,739 posts
  • Location:Phat ass Phoenix, AZ

Posted 23 October 2009 - 04:42 PM

well it is just a discussion (that's why i posted the topic) and you do raise some interesting points. It's definitely not black and white. and its not like the US courts are asking for him to be put on death row or anything. It's a 2 year sentence max. And he'll prolly get less than that due to the media spotlight, his celebrity, his celebrity supporters, the suggested tainting of the original trial and sentencing, etc.

it's just really hard to argue that a guy who got star treatment during a trial to determine if he was guilty of raping a child shouldn't be extradited back to the U.S. after he fled the country and remained at large for 32 years.
  • 0

#42 chalupacabra

chalupacabra

    Shizz Captain

  • Shizzified
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Location:Work time: Scottsdale; Home Time: Tempe

Posted 23 October 2009 - 04:48 PM

Therefore, I would be inclined to say that the documentary's argument is not valid.

wow, disregarding a documentary without seeing it or knowing much more than what i just posted from a synopsis. mindblowing.

i think i'm about done in this thread. this reminds me why arguing on the internet is worthless. everyone is convinced they are right. and no one (including myself) has all the facts.

let's just string the guy up like a pinata and let the victim have some whacks.


I think a documentary made by his buddy and his former PR firm is reason enough to be, at least, highly suspicious of the content without seeing it.
  • 0
Posted Image

CAGEMATCH

stomping on your fingers as you're clinging on to the abyss

#43 azwestdevil72

azwestdevil72

    Gotcha Jacket Dancer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona

Posted 23 October 2009 - 05:03 PM

Therefore, I would be inclined to say that the documentary's argument is not valid.

wow, disregarding a documentary without seeing it or knowing much more than what i just posted from a synopsis. mindblowing.

i think i'm about done in this thread. this reminds me why arguing on the internet is worthless. everyone is convinced they are right. and no one (including myself) has all the facts.

let's just string the guy up like a pinata and let the victim have some whacks.

As Jacki pointed out, considering how skewed in favor towards Polanski the article you cite is, why should I watch the documentary?

What is truly mind blowing is your emphasis that places priority on an alleged and far from proven wrong doing on the part of a deceased judge who can't defend himself against the allegations, over a proven and admitted child rapist who fled the country for 32 years. The man's guilt is not in question, yet you question whether or not he should serve additional time, based on a Polanski-favoring documentary and article? I believe you are focusing on the wrong issue.

The question you ought to ask yourself is this: is it justice if a man rapes a 13 year old girl after drugging her, flees the country for 32 years and thumbs his nose at the US legal system, and has only served 42 days in a psychological evaluation?
  • 0

#44 thecreeper

thecreeper

    Frank Beer, Defender of the Polyverse

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,580 posts

Posted 23 October 2009 - 05:46 PM

The question you ought to ask yourself is this: is it justice if a man rapes a 13 year old girl after drugging her, flees the country for 32 years and thumbs his nose at the US legal system, and has only served 42 days in a psychological evaluation?


why does it matter what i think? what you think? what jacki o. thinks? i think he should have been jailed, i don't know what an appropriate punishment length is for his crime. not my job either. and the people whose job it is to sentence him agreed that he should get probation, and then committed questionably legal tactics in order to try to change that. this has been made clear by many sources, not just the documentary i mentioned. i'm supposed to trust the legal system to give him the sentence he deserves. if the legal system doesn't act according to its own laws and rules, then i think that is a serious conversation worth having, especially if it is acting in accordance to public disapproval and the personal gains are being made by changing the rules. even a rapist deserves a fair and honest trial. and from what i have read, seen, and watched through television, i am not so sure he got a that. again, i'm open to being wrong about that. this could be all a huge campaign to throw the case in doubt, but i don't think it should be disregarded completely.

and arresting the guy 32 years later seems like a way of them patting themselves on the back for a self-congratulatory "yeah we got him!", and ignoring the fact that if this case had been handled correctly and fairly to start with, they wouldn't need to do this sort of thing. and now the victim is back in the news, old memories and her family unneeded distress and media attention that she does not want for a man she has publicly and personally forgiven ages ago.

everyone can and will play moral police and say he's finally getting what is coming to him, but i think there's a valid reason to reconsider whether this needs to be done now. then again, it kinda boils down to what you consider to be justice. regardless, the courts will decide his fate. and hopefully they act in accordance with the law. which may or may not involve stringing him up like a pinata.

that's really all i have to say about the subject.
  • 0

I broke down and watched Showgirls. Can anyone help me.


#45 bob

bob

    Gotcha Jacket Dancer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 857 posts

Posted 23 October 2009 - 06:14 PM

i recommend the film 'roman polanski: wanted and desired' to have a better scope on the opinions being presented here.
  • 1




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users