Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
eisely

Roman Polanski

Recommended Posts

I musta heard wrong.

 

I was only asking about him & Sharon Tate to verify what I thought. No other reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LisaBob

First of all Polanski was not charged or convicted of rape, the charge was having sex with an underage child, the girl never accused him of rape. Since you have lived in Europe as have I you know that the letter of the law, what is written and the spirit of the law, the way it is enforced is very different in Europe than in the USA, and if Polanski was not such a celebrity he would not have been able to live so freely in France and Italy all these years.

 

The fact that the US officials want him extradited to serve his sentence doesnt mean it will happen, in fact the Italian legal system despises the American legal system. Look at the trial of Amanda Knox going on right now in Italy, an American accused of murder, the evidence and DNA tests have all been compromised beyond any legal definition of evidence, and yet this fiasco of a trial continues on after two years, where is the justice. If Polanski was an American hiding out in Italy he would have been returned a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"First of all Polanski was not charged or convicted of rape, the charge was having sex with an underage child, the girl never accused him of rape."

 

In our country, sex with a child who cannot legally give consent is rape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what specific charges if any were ever formally made against Polanski. Having illegal sex with an underage minor was a negotiated plea. If he was ever actually arrested, and I believe that he was, some kind of charge would have to have been specified in order to hold him, even if he was not subsequently indicted by a grand jury.

 

A negotiated plea is a conviction and could be negotiated at any time if both the prosecution and the defendant are willing to negotiate. It is clear from the grand jury testimony that the sex was not consensual, notwithstanding that the girl was below the age of consent anyway. While the negotiated plea was for something less than rape, it is absolutely crystal clear that Polanski is a rapist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polanski WAS charged with Rape, specifcially Rape by Use of Drugs (Count 4) in his original indictment along with

(Count 1) Providing a Controlled Substance to a Minor,

(Count 2) Lewd or Lacivious Act upon a Child Under Fourteen,

(Count 3) Unlawful Sexual Intercourse,

(Count 5) Peversion, and

(Count 6) Sodomy of a person.

 

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/polanski/capolanski31977ind.html

 

The charge of rape and most of the others were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain. He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polanski WAS charged with Rape, specifcially Rape by Use of Drugs (Count 4) in his original indictment along with

(Count 1) Providing a Controlled Substance to a Minor,

(Count 2) Lewd or Lacivious Act upon a Child Under Fourteen,

(Count 3) Unlawful Sexual Intercourse,

(Count 5) Perversion, and

(Count 6) Sodomy of a person.

 

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/polanski/capolanski31977ind.html

 

The charge of rape and most of the others were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain. He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.(This message has been edited by erickelly65)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eric

I do agree with you in spirit however "arrested for" and "convicted of" are a world of legal difference, you are considered ONLY guilty of crimes you are CONVICTED OF, plea bargain or not, personal feelings or not. That has been our system of law for over 200 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BadenP: You, sir, are defending a rapist. I am stunned and disgusted. Attitudes like the one you are displaying here help explain why rape is a prevalent crime still today. People find all sorts of (irrelevant) "justifications" for what should simply be intolerable behavior. This is not a situation where the facts of the case are unclear and still under investigation. There is no ambiguity about what Polanski actually did.

 

Your other arguments are irrelevant to the specific situation. This has nothing to do with understanding the ins and outs of the legal proceedings or "spirit" vs. "intent" of the law in one country vs. another, which is not to say I agree with your attempted characterization of European countries' laws on this matter. Nor does the Knox case in Italy have anything to do with this situation. I don't know what your point was in bringing that up.

 

I will not discuss this further with you, BadenP. You have no credibility on this issue.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not defending Polanski, as I said earlier I think he is scum and should spend the rest of his life in jail. However that is not what the courts decided, they let him off easy because of his celebrity which is one of the problems with our legal system, a very obvious double standard.Lisa I think you are taking this way too personally as neither you or I will have anything to do with bringing him to justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He drugged a child and raped her. A child cannot legally give consent. Durgs interfere with the ability to give consent.

 

He fled the jurisdiction before he could be sentenced to the lesser crime for which he was convicted

 

Typically, if a suspect flees the jurisdiction, the statute of limitation stops running. Polanski thus faces charges for fleeing in addition to the original crime. And the court may not have to accept the original plea bargain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavah, where are you when we need you?

 

OK, I'm not a lawyer. I took 3 different courses in admin law as part of grad school in public management, but ...

 

If I remember... statute of limitations defines when a State may initiate action. Once the action is begun, that clock stops ticking. In the case of Mr Polanski, California, through the LA District Attorney, obtained an indictment.

 

- Further, Mr Polanski agreed to a plea bargain. He pled guilty on one count. Now, does that count as the moment of conviction?

 

- Mr Polanski evaded capture in 1978, after the conviction. From what I can see, as legal laity, he's an escaped convict.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cokie Roberts was on ABC's This Week. She wasn't too kind to Mr Polanski. Folks in the entertainment world are upset with her. Too bad, so sad.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My only question is considering California is broke, California law enforcement types are taking unpaid furlough days, ad infinitum, is pursuing Polanski the best use of California tax dollars?

 

Then I keep remembering he did a teen, and I hope they drag him home.

 

The original deal was for 3 months. That's not exactly a big deal. Some of the administrative procedures during and since might be, but the time isn't.

 

Now he faces escape in addition to whatever sentence the current Judge might give him.

 

Hang in there, California. Bring him home to jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Mr Polanski's case is in the news, its not unusual. People get picked up on a warrant that was issued years ago because they failed to appear and they were not returnable or couldn't be found. Then all the sudden something happens that causes your name to come to the attention of Law enforcement, like a speeding ticket, then you get an unexpected trip in the middle of the night to come see someone like me and generally get locked up. The oldest Warrant I have seen was 35 yrs old and was still valid.

 

Mr. Polanski is a convicted escaped FELON. He pled guilty and then ran before sentencing. He can by the way get sentenced to 4 yrs in Prison and a $25,000 fine for what he pled to. Its very likely he won't get anything more then time served, but he still needs to answer for what he pled for. It doesn't matter that the girl forgave him. If this was a murder charge no one would think twice about hanging him out to dry.

 

If your going to do the crime, be prepared to do the time. Running only makes it worse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"- Mr Polanski evaded capture in 1978, after the conviction. From what I can see, as legal laity, he's an escaped convict"

 

You're correct. No statute of limitations on people who skip bail after conviction. Happens all the time. Guys escape prison or skip and are found many years later go right back to jail. The only thing that has to be established is that it is the same person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48 days. Had he done 48 days 32 years ago, this would be a non-issue, administratively.

 

He's going to spend more time in the Swiss slammer awaiting extradition, and incur a heckuva lot more costs, than if he'd taken the days and been done with it.

 

He's effectively done the other part of this: Voluntary deportation. He's been home-based in France for 30-odd years.

 

This sure feels like a Forrest Gump moment to me...

 

(The matter of his being a child sex offender is obviously not a non-issue, at least to us Scouters)

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...