New topic
PrintableWhoa...less make sure we kinda understand the law.. 
Mr. Polanski was originally been charged with six criminal counts, including rape and sodomy, involving a 13 year-old girl whom he was accused of plying with alcohol and drugs. He eventually pleaded guilty to a single count of having sex with a minor, spent 42 day in a state prison under psychiatric evaluation, and fled on the eve of his sentencing in the BELIEF that the judge in the case would not agree to let him off without further jail time. First - as far as I see it there are two issues. 1) His statutory rape charge. 2) His flight from the U.S. based on his fear of justice motivated by fears of unfair (though not illegal) treatment. Both are illegal. Full stop. There's no gray area here from a legal perspective. None. As For the victim's opinion. - the victim's opinion is noted but it's also observed that said opinion does not contradict the fact that the crime took place. -it is also noted that the victim's stance is likely subject to outside pressure to not pursue this matter further and that in the absence of said pressure (which is not relevant to whether the crime was committed) that her opinion might very well be different. Conclusion : -the crime was committed -no legally binding sentence was served (in full) - the justice system was illegally sabotaged by Joe Doe -legally, the crime has not been punished (in full) The judge DOES have the prerogative to reject a plea agreement. Once Mr. Polanski fled the U.S. the plea agreement was null. The criminal justice system is not dependent on what sentence a defendant is willing to accept. It is based off of what the judge and/or jury determines to be an appropriate sentence. Yes, he made a plea agreement, but the judge and the court were not obligated to accept it. Once the judge changed his mind to accept the plea bargain and issued a tougher sentence then what was in the plea agreement, Polanski could have done 1 or 2 things: (1) withdraw his plea and contest the charges. (2) keep the plea and appeal the sentence. Those were his only options as a defendant. He was not entitled to flee the country until he can get a sentence he was willing to accept. That's not how the criminal justice system works. Defendants do not get to dictate the terms of their sentence or punishment. They can only defend against the charges and appeal adverse decisions. ===== [Edited 10/3/09 21:11pm] | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
PanthaGirl said: SUPRMAN said: She was 13 and he was more than two years older. So legally it was rape. We didn't have to be there. All was needed was her testimony, factual and circumstantial evidence. It would also be the state of the law at the time he was charged, not what the law is now. Still comes out to rape. That's not being narrow minded. That's the law. I see the arguments of his defenders and those that are simply looking at the passage of time. But there is no statute of limitations on murder for a reason isn't there? He should do his time. The law is narrow minded! Agreed. And for a reason. Society works best when you know the environment of risk that you are operating in. The law has to cover society, not specific instances or a particular set of circumstances that will be unique. Releasing him without being sentenced and not being charged as a fugitive just says that if you have enough money to hold out, you can walk away from your criminal behavior. If he were a banker convicted of a civil crime, no one would tolerate him escaping prison after being sentenced. There should not be a double standard. I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TD3 said: Whoa...less make sure we kinda understand the law..
Mr. Polanski was originally been charged with six criminal counts, including rape and sodomy, involving a 13 year-old girl whom he was accused of plying with alcohol and drugs. He eventually pleaded guilty to a single count of having sex with a minor, spent 42 day in a state prison under psychiatric evaluation, and fled on the eve of his sentencing in the BELIEF that the judge in the case would not agree to let him off without further jail time. First - as far as I see it there are two issues. 1) His statutory rape charge. 2) His flight from the U.S. based on his fear of justice motivated by fears of unfair (though not illegal) treatment. Both are illegal. Full stop. There's no gray area here from a legal perspective. None. As For the victim's opinion. - the victim's opinion is noted but it's also observed that said opinion does not contradict the fact that the crime took place. -it is also noted that the victim's stance is likely subject to outside pressure to not pursue this matter further and that in the absence of said pressure (which is not relevant to whether the crime was committed) that her opinion might very well be different. Conclusion : -the crime was committed -no legally binding sentence was served (in full) - the justice system was illegally sabotaged by Joe Doe -legally, the crime has not been punished (in full) The judge DOES have the prerogative to reject a plea agreement. Once Mr. Polanski fled the U.S. the plea agreement was null. The criminal justice system is not dependent on what sentence a defendant is willing to accept. It is based off of what the judge and/or jury determines to be an appropriate sentence. Yes, he made a plea agreement, but the judge and the court were not obligated to accept it. Once the judge changed his mind to accept the plea bargain and issued a tougher sentence then what was in the plea agreement, Polanski could have done 1 or 2 things: (1) withdraw his plea and contest the charges. (2) keep the plea and appeal the sentence. Those were his only options as a defendant. He was not entitled to flee the country until he can get a sentence he was willing to accept. That's not how the criminal justice system works. Defendants do not get to dictate the terms of their sentence or punishment. They can only defend against the charges and appeal adverse decisions. ===== [Edited 10/3/09 21:11pm] 100% Thank you, thank you and THANK YOU! I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TD3 said: Whoa...less make sure we kinda understand the law..
Mr. Polanski was originally been charged with six criminal counts, including rape and sodomy, involving a 13 year-old girl whom he was accused of plying with alcohol and drugs. He eventually pleaded guilty to a single count of having sex with a minor, spent 42 day in a state prison under psychiatric evaluation, and fled on the eve of his sentencing in the BELIEF that the judge in the case would not agree to let him off without further jail time. First - as far as I see it there are two issues. 1) His statutory rape charge. 2) His flight from the U.S. based on his fear of justice motivated by fears of unfair (though not illegal) treatment. Both are illegal. Full stop. There's no gray area here from a legal perspective. None. As For the victim's opinion. - the victim's opinion is noted but it's also observed that said opinion does not contradict the fact that the crime took place. -it is also noted that the victim's stance is likely subject to outside pressure to not pursue this matter further and that in the absence of said pressure (which is not relevant to whether the crime was committed) that her opinion might very well be different. Conclusion : -the crime was committed -no legally binding sentence was served (in full) - the justice system was illegally sabotaged by Joe Doe -legally, the crime has not been punished (in full) The judge DOES have the prerogative to reject a plea agreement. Once Mr. Polanski fled the U.S. the plea agreement was null. The criminal justice system is not dependent on what sentence a defendant is willing to accept. It is based off of what the judge and/or jury determines to be an appropriate sentence. Yes, he made a plea agreement, but the judge and the court were not obligated to accept it. Once the judge changed his mind to accept the plea bargain and issued a tougher sentence then what was in the plea agreement, Polanski could have done 1 or 2 things: (1) withdraw his plea and contest the charges. (2) keep the plea and appeal the sentence. Those were his only options as a defendant. He was not entitled to flee the country until he can get a sentence he was willing to accept. That's not how the criminal justice system works. Defendants do not get to dictate the terms of their sentence or punishment. They can only defend against the charges and appeal adverse decisions. ===== [Edited 10/3/09 21:11pm]  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SNL parodies Whoopi's defense
http://www.dailymotion.co...ursday_fun http://www.nbc.com/saturd...y/1162660/ http://video.aol.com/part...NNLW_Wl7sL | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Swiss say would have arrested Polanski earlier
http://news.yahoo.com/s/n...s_polanski ZURICH (Reuters) – Switzerland would have arrested film director Roman Polanski on earlier visits to the country if justice authorities had been aware of his presence, a Swiss minister said in an interview published on Sunday. Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said her department had only been aware of previous visits by Polanski, who owns a chalet in Swiss resort Gstaad, after the event. "This time we knew that he would be coming. After all, the organizers of the Zurich Film Festival had actively made it known," Widmer-Schlumpf was quoted as saying by Swiss newspaper SonntagsZeitung. Prominent Swiss, including Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, have criticized the handling of the arrest and Polanski was stunned, according to his lawyer, because he was a regular visitor to Switzerland. The Oscar-winning director has appealed against his arrest on a U.S. extradition warrant to face sentence for having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977. The 76-year-old, who holds dual French and Polish citizenship, was arrested at the request of the United States when he flew into Switzerland on September 26 to receive a lifetime achievement prize at the Zurich Film Festival. Polanski pleaded guilty to having sex with the girl but fled the United States on the eve of his 1978 sentencing because he believed a judge might overrule his plea and put him in jail for 50 years. "Switzerland is a constitutional state and Mr Polanski should always have counted on being disturbed on his earlier stays as well," Widmer-Schlumpf said. If Polanski had been involved in a traffic accident, for example, his personal details would have been checked and the Justice Department informed, she said. "The arrest of Mr Polanski has been sought worldwide by Interpol since 2005. If he comes to Switzerland, we are duty bound to fulfil the arrest as a treaty partner of the United States," she added. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SCNDLS said: Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf That can't be her real name. Schlumpf = Smurf in English   Formerly known as Parade @ HQ and formerly proud owner of www.paradetour.com | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dothejump said: SCNDLS said: Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf That can't be her real name. Schlumpf = Smurf in English Didn't you see her pic in the article?  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I'm impressed. Most of you see the situation for what it is. I have been shocked and appalled by my own friends saying things like, and I quote:
"Oh, I thought it was just an underage consensual affair..." "He's pretty hot. It's hard to believe he was forceful." "I don't know if she's credible. It's not like he brandished a knife and roughed her up. She was totally relaxed and high!" THESE ARE MY FRIENDS SPEAKING!!! The org has surpassed my expectations. Good work, people. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
This article hits the nail on the head:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/...index.html Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in "exile" (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never -- poor baby -- being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm. Can we do that? Can we take a moment to think about all that, and about the fact that Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, before we start talking about what a victim he is? Because that would be great, and not nearly enough people seem to be doing it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SCNDLS said: http://tv.yahoo.com/news/article/tv.tvguide.com/chris-rock-roman-polanski-its-rape-20091002
See why Chris will forever be my mofo??? 
Chris Rock on Roman Polanski: "It's Rape!" Chris Rock says he doesn't understand why fellow filmmakers are News: Fellow filmmakers call for Roman Polanski's release of Roman Polanski, saying of the charges against him, "It's rape." "People are defending Roman Polanski because he made some good movies? Are you kidding me?" Rock said on Thursday's Jay Leno Show. "He made good movies 30 years ago, Jay! Even Johnnie Cochran didn't have the nerve to go, 'Well, did you see O.J. play against New England?'" More than 100 filmmakers, including Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen, of whom Rock is a fan, have signed a petition voicing their objection to Polanski's arrest on 32-year-old charges of having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977, when he was 43. On Saturday, Zurich authorities arrested the Oscar-winning director, who fled the United States in 1978 after pleading guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with the girl.' "C'mon, man! She's 13! I've seen some hot 16-year-olds that look 18, 17 that look 18. Thirteen is 13! No one gets away with having sex with a 13-year-old," Rock said. "Rape. It's rape! Rape is No. 2. It's murder, then rape," the comedian continued. "It's No. 2. Like the United States, we want to capture Osama bin Laden and murder him. We're not going to rape him. That would be barbaric." Rock is among only a few celebrities who have criticized the swell of support behind Polanski, 76. Jewel and The View's Sherri Shepherd both voiced their disapproval on Twitter.  X 10 looking for you in the woods tonight Switch FC SW-2874-2863-4789 (Rum&Coke) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
heartbeatocean said: They left out the part where after the first rape. He went and did something then went back and raped her again. [Edited 10/4/09 19:57pm] "Keep on shilling for Big Pharm!" |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
heartbeatocean said: I'm impressed. Most of you see the situation for what it is. I have been shocked and appalled by my own friends saying things like, and I quote:
"Oh, I thought it was just an underage consensual affair..." "He's pretty hot. It's hard to believe he was forceful." "I don't know if she's credible. It's not like he brandished a knife and roughed her up. She was totally relaxed and high!" THESE ARE MY FRIENDS SPEAKING!!! The org has surpassed my expectations. Good work, people.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PANDURITO said: MIGUELGOMEZ said: Not with an adult. If they're 16 and are messing around with their 15/16/17 year old boyfriend/girlfriend then I can't help that. So the 16 year old girl can have sex with his 17 years old boyfriend until his birthday when he officially becomes a rapist   Yeah, crazy, isn't it?
But I've yet to hear why the victim in Polanski's case has accepted to take his money...  I am but mad north-northwest
when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Eh keep his ass locked up. Nobody should be able to buy their way out of raping someone nor flee the country. The dude had one of the most lenient sentences for a horrible crime and he fucked it up. This is no longer about the girl but about the blatant disrespect for the law and rape victimes in general. FUCK POLANSKI.
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Imago said: He's probably going to go to trial for fleeing.
But he's already been convicted, so I don't think he can be tried twice for that crime. He pleeded guilty and served his initial time. I believe the judge tried to give him more days or something at which point he fled. I seriously doubt he'll be tried again for the same crime. There's no way it would fly. How the hell is 45 days a sufficient punishment for statutory rape? The 45 days was not part of his sentence. He was sent to be evaluated for 90 days prior to being sentenced. However, the facility let him out after about 45 days. Somehow he got the idea that the judge was going to give him more time and he fled. He stands convicted of some crime related to sex with a child so there in no need to have another trial. But they could. For one he had 6 charges 5 were dropped for a plea on the lesser charge if by leaving he violated the terms of the plea then he can be tried for thoes 5 crimes. Also as he left the country he may have undone his plea deal and it is possable that he could be charged on all 6 counts. "Keep on shilling for Big Pharm!" |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DesireeNevermind said: Eh keep his ass locked up. Nobody should be able to buy their way out of raping someone nor flee the country. The dude had one of the most lenient sentences for a horrible crime and he fucked it up. This is no longer about the girl but about the blatant disrespect for the law and rape victimes in general. FUCK POLANSKI.
Barring the expletive . . . . Co-sign 100% (Do I have to become hetero before I chase you for your hand in marriage? )I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SUPRMAN said: DesireeNevermind said: Eh keep his ass locked up. Nobody should be able to buy their way out of raping someone nor flee the country. The dude had one of the most lenient sentences for a horrible crime and he fucked it up. This is no longer about the girl but about the blatant disrespect for the law and rape victimes in general. FUCK POLANSKI.
Barring the expletive . . . . Co-sign 100% (Do I have to become hetero before I chase you for your hand in marriage? ) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Good to see Chris Rock keeping it real as always. These celebs defending Polanski have no morals.
Anyway, my thoughts. First let me say that I DO NOT believe that sex with an underage girl is always wrong. I can't understand the appeal of it myself, but to say it's always wrong is just silly. The uncomfortable truth is there are many underage girls who do indeed want it. So for me the MORAL issue (not the LEGAL issue) is consent. From what I understand, he drugged her up and she still said "No". He fucked her up the ass so she wouldn't get pregnant. Now, to me, this is straight up rape. He needs to go down, just like MJ should have gone down, and those people turning a blind eye to it should be ashamed. “The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
What troubles me is the reluctance of the majority here to talk about the (huge amount of) money the victim got... I am but mad north-northwest
when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
porfyrivrohi said: What troubles me is the reluctance of the majority here to talk about the (huge amount of) money the victim got...
How much was it exactly, since you know so much? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
midnightmover said: So for me the MORAL issue (not the LEGAL issue) is consent. From what I understand, he drugged her up and she still said "No". He fucked her up the ass so she wouldn't get pregnant. Now, to me, this is straight up rape. He needs to go down, just like MJ should have gone down, and those people turning a blind eye to it should be ashamed.
Right on! It's amazing how some folks make excuses when celebrities do fucked-up shit. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SCNDLS said: porfyrivrohi said: What troubles me is the reluctance of the majority here to talk about the (huge amount of) money the victim got...
How much was it exactly, since you know so much? The civil settlement reached in 1993 was over $500,000 USD. Geimer acknowledged, confirmed and accepted this. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PanthaGirl said: SCNDLS said: How much was it exactly, since you know so much? The civil settlement reached in 1993 was over $500,000 USD. Geimer acknowledged, confirmed and accepted this. So what? Fifteen years after the crime she accepted a payoff and suddenly announced that she thinks the charges should be dropped. It's not rocket science.  Besides, I don't think anyone's been "reluctant" to discuss the settlement. It's just that her accepting a payoff is completely irrelevant to what happened 30 years ago, which is that he committed to a crime, admitted it, and fled the country before doing his time. None of that gets magically erased because he paid her off. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SCNDLS said: PanthaGirl said: The civil settlement reached in 1993 was over $500,000 USD. Geimer acknowledged, confirmed and accepted this. So what? Fifteen years after the crime she accepted a payoff and suddenly announced that she thinks the charges should be dropped. It's not rocket science. Besides, I don't think anyone's been "reluctant" to discuss the settlement. It's just that her accepting a payoff is completely irrelevant to what happened 30 years ago, which is that he committed to a crime, admitted it, and fled the country before doing his time. None of that gets magically erased because he paid her off.Geezus. I only stated the figures of settlement, nothing more. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SCNDLS said: SUPRMAN said: Barring the expletive . . . . Co-sign 100% (Do I have to become hetero before I chase you for your hand in marriage? ) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SUPRMAN said: DesireeNevermind said: Eh keep his ass locked up. Nobody should be able to buy their way out of raping someone nor flee the country. The dude had one of the most lenient sentences for a horrible crime and he fucked it up. This is no longer about the girl but about the blatant disrespect for the law and rape victimes in general. FUCK POLANSKI.
Barring the expletive . . . . Co-sign 100% (Do I have to become hetero before I chase you for your hand in marriage? ) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PanthaGirl said: SCNDLS said: So what? Fifteen years after the crime she accepted a payoff and suddenly announced that she thinks the charges should be dropped. It's not rocket science. Besides, I don't think anyone's been "reluctant" to discuss the settlement. It's just that her accepting a payoff is completely irrelevant to what happened 30 years ago, which is that he committed to a crime, admitted it, and fled the country before doing his time. None of that gets magically erased because he paid her off.Geezus. I only stated the figures of settlement, nothing more.  Isn't it obvious to you that I was also responding to the original poster??? Save the drama[Edited 10/6/09 11:09am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DesireeNevermind said: SCNDLS said: Supr is a fickle ho. I thought he was going hetero for me. [Edited 10/6/09 11:10am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SCNDLS said: DesireeNevermind said: Supr is a fickle ho. I thought he was going hetero for me.
[Edited 10/6/09 11:10am] Not fickle, just like quality. It's not like I'd be married to both of you in the same state . . . . I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |