150 replies to this topic

[rucus7]

Wino, on 22 January 2010 - 02:45 AM, said:

I am not sure why California's prosecutors are so quick to spend the taxpayer's money on this case.


http://news.yahoo.co...ncefilmpolanski

Maybe because drugging and sodomizing a 13 year old is a crime?

[lvdkeyes]

Exactly.

[Wino]

The crime victim is against it and I think her views should be important in this case. Certainly the 77 year old criminal is no threat to the good people of California. The state is running in the red and is cash-strapped. Is this battle worth fighting?

[lvdkeyes]

IMHO, justice is always worth the fight.

[Bob]

Wino, on 24 January 2010 - 07:27 AM, said:

The crime victim is against it and I think her views should be important in this case. Certainly the 77 year old criminal is no threat to the good people of California. The state is running in the red and is cash-strapped. Is this battle worth fighting?

If you read any of the transcript of what really happened, I'm amazed you can think that way. He drugged and raped a 13-year kid when he was in his 40's and there is absolutely nothing you can possibly say or think to minimize that.

Prosecutors do take into consideration what a victim thinks and wants but a prosecutor's job is not only to make the victim "happy" (I put that in quotes as too often that's a very weird use of the word "happy"). There is such a thing as charging somebody with a crime because the person needs to be punished and there is also a time where a case needs to be pursued to send a message to the public that certain behavior won't be tolerated.

A couple of decades ago, prosecutors routinely dismissed domestic violence cases at the request of the victim (usually the wife or girlfriend). And what the prosecutors and legislators found occurred was a continued string of beatings by the same agressor. That rarely happens anymore and there's a hell of a lot less repetitious violence by the same guy against the same women.

If anybody truly feels sorry in any small way for Roman Polanski, I feel sorry for you.

[Wino]

I don't feel sorry for Roman. I understand how the prosecutor likes to set examples to send a message to the public. My point is a 30+ year old case with money a factor, and no threat to the public, and the victim is pleading the case for the defendant. I think there are other battles to fight.

[Beer Chang]

lvdkeyes, on 24 January 2010 - 07:45 AM, said:

IMHO, justice is always worth the fight.

In our system very often it's not in the defendant's interest to fight for justice and much safer to take a plea bargain.

[lvdkeyes]

How can it be in the victim's best interest to let a piece of shit like Roman go free? There was no plea bargain discussed. He fled the country to escape prison.

[Beer Chang]

lvdkeyes, on 24 January 2010 - 10:16 AM, said:

How can it be in the victim's best interest to let a piece of shit like Roman go free?

Perhaps the payoff was more meaningful than revenge?

[lvdkeyes]

You mean a cash payoff? Maybe that's why the victim wants to let it go, but I am glad to see that the CA prosecutors aren't.

[Beer Chang]

Yea, a cash payoff.

[Wino]

Cash payoff or not, she has gotten on with her life and after 30+ years does not want to revisit the past. I think her wishes should be granted.

[lvdkeyes]

So, you are saying that the law should be ignored because she wants forget it?

[Wino]

I know you staunch law and order people will disagree, but this is my take on the Roman issue. I have no sympathy for the crime he committed. What he did was unforgiveable. That said, the victim has forgiven him, payoff or not, she has gone on with her life and does not want Roman brought to justice. I think the prosecutors should respect her wishes. It has been 30 plus years and she has put this incident in the past. Deals are made all the time in our system and I am all for a deal. In these 30 plus year Roman, at 77 years of age, has had no further problems with the law and is no threat to the public. Why spend big money on this case when there are better uses of scarce public funds?

[rucus7]

Wino, on 29 January 2010 - 03:34 AM, said:

I know you staunch law and order people will disagree, but this is my take on the Roman issue. I have no sympathy for the crime he committed. What he did was unforgiveable. That said, the victim has forgiven him, payoff or not, she has gone on with her life and does not want Roman brought to justice. I think the prosecutors should respect her wishes. It has been 30 plus years and she has put this incident in the past. Deals are made all the time in our system and I am all for a deal. In these 30 plus year Roman, at 77 years of age, has had no further problems with the law and is no threat to the public. Why spend big money on this case when there are better uses of scarce public funds?

How is Roman Polanski's age relevant? How much are these "big money" costs? What do you base your assumption that he poses "no threat to the Public" on? His admitted guilt, along with flight from potential incarceration are the current issues. I believe it is the state of California vs. Roman Polanski. The victim has been paid in a Civil suit. Perhaps this satisfies the victim, however it has no bearing on the Criminal case.

[lvdkeyes]

Wino, on 29 January 2010 - 03:34 AM, said:

[size="3"][font="Calibri"] What he did was unforgiveable. That said, the victim has forgiven him,

Enough said!

[Beer Chang]

rucus7, on 29 January 2010 - 05:39 AM, said:

How much are these "big money" costs?

High profile cases always take up lots of manhours. Jailtime is not cheap either.

IMO California, given their big budget deficet, would be better served on things which directly affect their citizens in 2010.

[Bob]

Beer Chang, on 31 January 2010 - 07:22 AM, said:

Jailtime is not cheap either.

Nope, it's not. But there are state laws that allow the state to go after the individual for the cost of their incarceration (allegedly some $40,000.00 per year depending on the location). They only do that, of course, with the rare case where the person can actually afford to pay for it.

[rucus7]

Beer Chang, on 31 January 2010 - 07:22 AM, said:

High profile cases always take up lots of manhours........
given their big budget deficet, ....

These " man hours" are generated by individuals in exempt salaried positions. An exempt position means it is not subject to overtime. They will cost the citizens of California the same amount, whether they work on Polanski's case or someone else's case.
It may increase the backlog of criminal cases. This will keep those that are waiting for their day in court, waiting longer. Is that too high a price?

[Beer Chang]

I guess it's a matter of priorities.

High profile cases certainly do increase backlogs. The OJ trial probably took up 50 times as many resources as some random murder in East LA.