[smoker]

Anyone else think the Justice Department should have better things to do with their time than negotiate with the Swiss over a 31 year old bail skipping warrant on Roman Polanski?

What could this possibly accomplish other than making the victim's life a living hell once more?

It would be like them trying to enforce my ex-wife's alimony payments on me when I haven't been in the United States in more than nine years!

[Beer Chang]

smoker, on 28 September 2009 - 11:16 AM, said:

Anyone else think the Justice Department should have better things to do with their time than negotiate with the Swiss over a 31 year old bail skipping warrant on Roman Polanski?

What could this possibly accomplish other than making the victim's life a living hell once more?

It would be like them trying to enforce my ex-wife's alimony payments on me when I haven't been in the United States in more than nine years!

Lots of better things for Justice to do!

[rucus7]

smoker, on 28 September 2009 - 11:16 AM, said:

Anyone else think the Justice Department should have better things to do with their time than negotiate with the Swiss over a 31 year old bail skipping warrant on Roman Polanski?

What could this possibly accomplish other than making the victim's life a living hell once more?

It would be like them trying to enforce my ex-wife's alimony payments on me when I haven't been in the United States in more than nine years!

The Department of Justice certainly has plenty to do. However, the context of this case should not be forgotten. Roman Polanski plead guilty, not on some whimsical lark. He plead down to sexual intercourse with a minor. A minor in this case was a thirteen year old girl, that he hired as a photographic model. He drugged her with sedatives and alcohol, then had non consensual sex with her. He plead guilty because he wanted to serve less jail time. While on bail awaiting sentencing, he apparently had a change of heart. He fled to Europe. I don't think a question of innocence has been raised. Somehow only forfeiture of bail seems inadequate in this case.

[lvdkeyes]

It seems that skipping the country is some people's solution to their self-created problems.

[Wino]

rucus7, on 28 September 2009 - 02:15 PM, said:

The Department of Justice certainly has plenty to do. However, the context of this case should not be forgotten. Roman Polanski plead guilty, not on some whimsical lark. He plead down to sexual intercourse with a minor. A minor in this case was a thirteen year old girl, that he hired as a photographic model. He drugged her with sedatives and alcohol, then had non consensual sex with her. He plead guilty because he wanted to serve less jail time. While on bail awaiting sentencing, he apparently had a change of heart. He fled to Europe. I don't think a question of innocence has been raised. Somehow only forfeiture of bail seems inadequate in this case.

The victim, now 43 years old, thinks it is not wise to bring this issue back after 30 years. I heard Roman fled the country after the judge did not go along with the negotiated plea bargain.

[rucus7]

Wino, on 28 September 2009 - 04:04 PM, said:

The victim, now 43 years old, thinks it is not wise to bring this issue back after 30 years. I heard Roman fled the country after the judge did not go along with the negotiated plea bargain.

The victim was paid an undisclosed amount by Roman Polanski. The judge is deceased. My understanding of the plea bargain process is that the judge has latitude in sentencing. In a plea bargain I don't think there is a binding contract. It seems as though he may been have willing spend one year in prison but not three. I cannot rationalize how the rape of a thirteen year old girl is OK because it was thirty years ago. This is not about a statute of limitations, it is about a man that has admitted guilt hiding behind his celebrity.

[Bob]

Rucus7 fairly states the facts of the case. He drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl.

This whole case, at least to me, is more about how the rich and famous tend to get away with things that others of lesser "stature" can't avoid. Polanski did the crime (a serious one), he admitted to it, and there ought to be consequences. He ought to be very happy that I'm not the sentencing judge as he'd get no mercy from me.

I can fathom showing mercy to somebody who's stealing to eat or even somebody who does something out of the ordinary due to substantial pressure or intoxication. But I see no cause for feeling generous towards an educated, affluent, and pampered "star" who, at age 45 years of age, drugged and raped a 13-year old.

[rucus7]

Wino, on 28 September 2009 - 04:04 PM, said:

The victim, now 43 years old, thinks it is not wise to bring this issue back after 30 years. I heard Roman fled the country after the judge did not go along with the negotiated plea bargain.

The victim was paid an undisclosed amount by Roman Polanski. The judge is deceased. My understanding of the plea bargain process is that the judge has latitude in sentencing. In a plea bargain I don't think there is a binding contract. It seems as though he may been have willing spend one year in prison but not three. I cannot rationalize how the rape of a thirteen year old girl is OK because it was thirty years ago. This is not about a statute of limitations, it is about a man that has admitted guilt hiding behind his celebrity.

[Wino]

rucus7, on 28 September 2009 - 05:06 PM, said:

The victim was paid an undisclosed amount by Roman Polanski.

I heard that the victim did file a civil lawsuit and reached an undisclosed settlement. The victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself publicly, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over. I think the victim's wishes should hold some weight. What exactly were the charges? I thought it was unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Or was it rape?

[Beer Chang]

I don't understand why more poeple don't just do a Thaksin and get out of the country.

[Wino]

Beer Chang, on 28 September 2009 - 09:03 PM, said:

I don't understand why more poeple don't just do a Thaksin and get out of the country.

I think Roman did do a Thaksin and got out of the country, or did Thaksin do a Roman?

[Bob]

If you want to read the transcript of the grand jury testimony by the then 13-year-old victim, it's posted here: SG It's the Smoking Gun website which I hardly approve of but, supposedly, that's an accurate copy of the transcript.

Polanski gave the girl champagne and part of a qualude. He photographed her in various stages of dress (including nude) and then, as I read it, he raped her (performing oral sex on her and then, in spite of her repeatedly saying "no" to him, vaginal and anal sex). The girl was 13 and Polanski was apparently about 45 or so (he's 77 now and it was 31 years ago?).

And he pleaded guilty to the charge, allegedly involving some deal that he would undergo 45 days of psychiatric review but would ultimately avoid prison time. He fled the country when he heard that the judge wasn't going to go with the "no prison" time.

Had I been his judge, I would have sent the bastard to prison. And I'd also ask for an investigation of whatever idiot prosecutor may have made a "no prison" deal with Polanski for raping a 13-year-old kid.

[Wino]

I am in no way defending Roman for what he did. It was wrong and stupid, but why go after him 30 some odd years later? I don't get it. The victim wants him free. The French and Europeans think he should be free. At 77, what good will it do to put him in jail? Like he is a child predator and we need to keep him off the streets? I think there must be ulterior motives here, although I don't know what that could be. The expense of valuable resources doesn’t make any sense. I thought the State of California didn't have any money! Why arrest him now? Good god he has been to Switzerland many times and is reported to own a chalet, there. Why the international manhunt now for a 30 year old case? Must be one of those closet terrorists.

[WannaGo]

Bob, on 28 September 2009 - 09:10 PM, said:

If you want to read the transcript of the grand jury testimony by the then 13-year-old victim, it's posted here: SG It's the Smoking Gun website which I hardly approve of but, supposedly, that's an accurate copy of the transcript.

Polanski gave the girl champagne and part of a qualude. He photographed her in various stages of dress (including nude) and then, as I read it, he raped her (performing oral sex on her and then, in spite of her repeatedly saying "no" to him, vaginal and anal sex). The girl was 13 and Polanski was apparently about 45 or so (he's 77 now and it was 31 years ago?).

And he pleaded guilty to the charge, allegedly involving some deal that he would undergo 45 days of psychiatric review but would ultimately avoid prison time. He fled the country when he heard that the judge wasn't going to go with the "no prison" time.

Had I been his judge, I would have sent the bastard to prison. And I'd also ask for an investigation of whatever idiot prosecutor may have made a "no prison" deal with Polanski for raping a 13-year-old kid.

I'm with Bob on this one. The guy committed scumbaggery in the first degree. I understand the victim just wanting it to be over, but in something as serious as child rape -- and this wasn't some May-December thing; it was molestation -- you can't allow the victimizer to escape justice just because he was clever enough to stay out of the law's hands for long enough. It's not as if it was a traffic ticket or even an old pot charge. And the 13 year old is no longer the only victim in this case...as pompous as it might sound, the law also is a victim.

I do agree that DOJ has better things to do than fool with such an old case, and I wonder why they didn't put more effort into catching him 20 or 30 years ago when there was still a chance of getting him some actual prison time. But it's still an important matter of law, and they can't just overlook it.

From what I understand, the judge in the case did renege on the plea deal, but judges are never required to approve a deal the prosecution offers the defendant. I wonder why the hell the prosecutor even offered such a deal in a case like this...these kinds of things usually hinge on the testimony of the victim, so maybe she would have made a weak witness, and he felt like he had no choice. Or maybe it was just the political climate of California at the time. Whatever the deal, this case has been an embarrassment to the justice system.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

[WannaGo]

Quote

It's the Smoking Gun website which I hardly approve of...

Bob, just curious, how come you don't like the Smoking Gun?

[WannaGo]

By the way, this piece in Salon says it better than I ever could.

[Bob]

Wino, on 28 September 2009 - 09:37 PM, said:

I am in no way defending Roman for what he did. It was wrong and stupid...

What he did, at least in my eyes, was more than wrong and stupid. I do wrong and stupid things every so often but I don't drug, rape, and sodomize 13-year-old kids.

While I understand your view, Wino, I totally disagree with the post-90's view of life that nobody is responsible for anything they do. Yea, Judge, I killed the guy but I played too many violent video games. Or, yea, I did it, but I was drunk when it happened - or my mother spanked me when I was a child - or whatever.

This guy did it, admitted he did it, and I don't so easily forgive and forget very serious crimes that harm another human being (let alone a 13-year-old child).

I have sympathy for the victim and her feelings about the matter ought to be taken into account; yet, there is prescribed punishment for this type of offense and another relevant sentencing factor here is the message one sends to the rest of society (raping a kid is not tolerable and rich dudes don't deserve a pass on it because they committed another crime by fleeing the jurisdiction).


P.S. With respect to the SmokingGun website, I probably should have said that I am not endorsing the website just by posting a link to it. Generally, I have no problem with the site but it has in the past (in my opinion) acted rather right-wing with its postings.

[Bob]

Sorry to keep yakking on the subject but I just read the Salon piece that WannaGo linked above. And I totally agree with at least the following portion of the last paragraph of that article which reads:

"Roman Polanski may be a great director, an old man, a husband, a father, a friend to many powerful people, and even the target of some questionable legal shenanigans. He may very well be no threat to society at this point. He may even be a good person on balance, whatever that means. But none of that changes the basic, undisputed fact: Roman Polanski raped a child. And rushing past that point to focus on the reasons why we should forgive him, pity him, respect him, admire him, support him, whatever, is absolutely twisted."

[lvdkeyes]

I couldn't agree more. The reprobate needs to get his comeuppance. The fact that they have not pursued this issue for 30 years is reprehensible.

[Beer Chang]

Bob, on 28 September 2009 - 09:10 PM, said:

And he pleaded guilty to the charge, allegedly involving some deal that he would undergo 45 days of psychiatric review but would ultimately avoid prison time. He fled the country when he heard that the judge wasn't going to go with the "no prison" time.

I suppose without plea barganing the court system would be all clogged up but it's the prudent thing to plead guilty if the deal avoids jail time. And Roman was smart to flee the country.

I am not condoning statutory rape, but if you have the money to flee you're an idiot if you don't.