Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
eisely

Roman Polanski

Recommended Posts

The truth of the matter is that the statute of limitations has long since passed in Polanski's case, like it or not. As far as Benedict is concerned, during the height of the abuse cases being brought to light(2002-2005), when in essence he was running the Church, he did instruct the bishops of the church to quietly and quickly settle all cases under the table of which hundreds were and never brought to the publics attention. I know this from the bishop in my own archdiocese who received this order from Rome signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, aka Benedict, during a case of a teenager in my youth group who was abused by the parish priest. It was settled for a cash payment under the table, under the threat of excommunication, it never went to court, and that priest is still at large serving in another parish today. As far as Roman P. is concerned he is scum in my view but his crime pales in comparison to Benedicts.

 

So Merlyn for the first time I have to say I agree with you, especially about Benedict and the abuses that the hierarchy of the RC church has yet to be held accountable. To date not one bishop or cardinal has served time for his crimes, and only a handful of the guilty priests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In re: Mr Polanski,

 

I am of two minds.

 

He cut an exceedingly generous plea deal (< 3 months? Hugely generous), and he skipped town ahead of the sentencing. He needs to be brought to justice.

 

OTOH, California is spending money it doesn't have.

 

I keep coming back to the generous plea deal. Bring the man to justice.

 

In re Father Benedict:

Anyone who wants to charge the Head of State of Vatican City is welcome to travel there and give it a try. Anyone who wants to try and do a "snatch and grab" extradition is welcome to try going against the Swiss Guards.

 

Long, long ago, a career course classmate of mine was a Swiss artilleryman. Let me assure you: I never, ever want to conduct operations against the Swiss Army or police.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is gonna like this but here goes anyway.

 

Was it ever proven that Polanski actually did what he is accused of doing? I have heard stories that the girl has recanted.

 

And wasn't he married to Sharon Tate when Chuckie went on his rampage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets see, he was convicted, his accuser described what he did to her and he admitted it.

 

What does his marital status at the time have to do with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, she has not recanted, but she has also asked that the matter be dropped. She has made her name public btw and confirms everything that happened.

 

What in the world does his being married to Sharon Tate have to do with anything regarding his crime???!!????

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statute of limitations doesn't apply to Roman.

He entered a plea bargain. Admitted some portion of his guilt and negotiated a sentence. But he got cold feet before serving his sentence and fled to France. He's a fugitive. Plain and simple. If brought back, he should serve his original sentence then face charges for violating the plea bargain.

 

Not sure why Cali is spending money on this. He won't voluntarily come back here. They are safe from him. Its France's problem.

 

And yes, Sharon Tate was his pregnant wife who was butchered by followers of Charles Manson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polanski was CONVICTED. He skipped town before sentencing. That makes him an escaped convicted criminal. He should not only be extradited in handcuffs, but should now be tried and convicted of escape in addition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why I am entering this discussion. But anyway. Polanski and his lawyers had worked out a plea agreement (the exact terms have not been disclosed) where he would admit guilt, keep her name out of the courts and he would not serve any time. Before sentencing the judge sent him to for mental evaluation as to whether he was a "sex offender". He spent 42 days in a high security prison but was found NOT to be a habitual sex offender. The judge allowed Polanski to travel to Europe to finish a movie that was in production. While away the judge and the DA were making it appear that Polanski might serve an additional 48 days beyond the 42 already served for evaluation. Polanski believed this was not part of the plea agreement reached, so decided not to return.

 

I am NOT saying one way or the other who is right. These are issues I have been able to figure out so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see why people are rushing to defend Roman Polanski. As scoutldr correctly pointed out, he's an escaped convicted felon. Not only that, but the descriptions of what he was convicted of are very disturbing. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well guys Italy has never had an extradition treaty with the USA so thats why RP has been able to live a carefree life, not to mention that most of Europe has a very different view of the crime he committed, and lastly the statute of limitations still applies.

Another example the state Attorney General of Massachusetts had an arrest warrant issued for Cardinal Bernard Law for conspiracy concerning priest abuse issues but he has been given sanctuary by the Vatican and will never see the inside of a courtroom or a jail cell. So you see crime does pay if you are rich enough or powerful enough or just well connected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(CBS) There is no statute of limitations governing the case of Roman Polanski who was arrested by Swiss police on Saturday on a 31-year-old arrest warrant.

 

CBS News legal analyst Lisa Bloom said that is because the director, now 76, had already pleaded guilty in 1978 to having had unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl. "He already has been convicted."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/earlyshow/main5346108.shtml

 

Also, it isnt just about being rich or powerful. Depending on the international agreements between countries, people can get away with all kinds of crazy stuff.

 

Mother takes kids from US and hides in Japan and there isnt much the US courts can do about it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/30/earlyshow/main5352195.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"not to mention that most of Europe has a very different view of the crime he committed,"

 

Unless you are suggesting that much of Europe has a stricter view of this sort of crime, then I would have to respond: Cow Pies.

 

European attitudes towards sex and nudity in general may differ, but I've lived and traveled pretty extensively in Europe and have not noticed that raping 13 year olds is socially acceptable anywhere I've ever been. Police and court systems may be weak in some places, particularly in Eastern Europe, but that does not mean this sort of behavior is widely accepted.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I said was if you want to talk pies, explain why the pie talk is being tossed about. Here I think I understand Lisa Bob's reference. Rape is Rape in any country and whether a child or adult says no to sex, it means no

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laws about statutes of limitations will vary among countries and among states within the US. I think in general in the US that statute of limitations refers to when charges must be laid. It does not mean that a conviction must be obtained before the expiration of the statute. Any attornies reading this feel free to correct me. In any event, the statute of limitations issue is moot, since Polanski did plead guilty to a lesser charge. That is what he will be sentenced for if he is returned to the US.

 

I too have no sympathy for the roman catholic priests who molested children or their superiors who covered up for them. I am not going to presume to judge Benedict in this since I am not at all sure that anything I have read about his alleged role is factual.

 

While I am at best a nominal catholic, I can be very anti clerical in my attitudes from time to time, which is not the same thing as rejecting any particular teaching or doctrine of the church. I mentioned the church scandals initially in this thread to simnply point out the fact that the perpetrators in those scandals did at least exhibit some sense of shame which is totally absent from Polanski. He probably thinks he deserves another Oscar for his current performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...