The judge changing his mind does not justify his fleeing from justice. He is an already convicted child rapist. Why should he be allowed to escape any sentencing just because he was able to run away for a long enough time?
Er…he has to file the appeal. He, the defendant or in reality the guilty party, has to appeal the conviction. If there were prosecutorial misconduct to the level you are suggesting then then an appeal probably would have been successful. Indeed, if the misconduct was so gross then there is often an investigation by the District Attorney. I have heard of no such investigation. Polanski was obligated to stay in the US and argue his case.
Yep. Happens all the time. The prosecutors can make deals but they can’t guaraty that the their sentencing suggestions will be taken. Why is that? Because the Judge is supposed to be an independent party who is there to adjudicate fairly. It limits the opportunities for corruption. Again, an appeal might well have worked but Polanski unilaterally decided to flee. And can you provide me with citation for any of this? From a reputable source?
By imprisoning the rapist.
Plus he’ll have to face embarrassing questions when he gets home:
“Roman, why aren’t you saying anything? Where’s your award?”
“I didn’t like it. The mast had termites.”
“Why would an award have a mast?”
“Because… the thingy was… shut up!”
Cite for the judge accepting it and then going back on it?
What is the deal with France? Do they laugh condescendingly at your american puritanism where it is frowned upon to anally rape young girls?
“It’s hard to contest some of the behavior in the documentary was misconduct.” - Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza (in response to Polanski’s dismissal request.
:eek:
“You always get your way” indeed.
Polanski basically did what Anand Jon did, though Jon did it repeatedly, and Polanksi only did it once, that we know of.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-anandjon1-2009sep01,0,1011779.story
Polanski’s been free, enjoyed a tremendously good life - fame, beautiful young women, critical and popular acclaim, money.
Put him in prison til he’s 80, and then let him live out his decrepit years at home.
Then Polanski has grounds to appeal the sentence. If his case is so good, he should have no trouble having his appeal heard.
The issue here is larger than Roman Polanski; it’s the rule of law. Civilized countries have courts of trial and courts of appeal and legal machinations of all sorts to sort these questions out. If a rich asshole convicted of a crime can jump over the legal system because HE thinks he’s being treated unfairly - and of course all defendants do - then they all will. There’d be no reason for anyone with the means to do so to not ship out.
Polanski needs to be arrested and sentenced, and then given a chance to appeal his sentence, because the law must be applied equally to all people. That’s one of the principles that makes the law work as well as it does.
France doesn’t extradite it’s own citizens. There is a provision for French citizens to be tried in French courts for crimes commited abroad, but I don’t know that never happened re Polanski.
Then file an appeal. He may have grounds for a technical dismissal though more likely, if true, that he would get a mistrial and charges would be refiled.
Why didn’t he do that? Becuase he is a guilty as sin and he knows that he would be convicted again. So, he hides behind this claim of prosecutorial misconduct to avoid his just prison sentence.
I agree with your point, but actually his argument was judicial misconduct, not prosecutorial - that the judge was more interested in the publicity of the case than in reaching a fair decision.
The judge may have reviewed and informally concurred with the plea agreement between prosecution and defense, but no plea was ever entered into the record, nor did Polanski formally allocute (generally required for entry of a plea agreement, though I don’t know if this is true in California). It is entirely at the judge’s discretion as to whether to accept the terms of a plea agreement. Polanski may or may not have been railroaded, but given the admitted facts of the case–that he confined a 13 year old girl under false pretenses, provided her with alcohol adulterated with a tranquilizing drug in order to assure compliance, and repeatedly and deliberately had non-consensual anal sex with her–the original terms of the plea agreement (charges reduced to “unlawful sex with a minor”) were inexplicably diminished to the point of injustice. If Polanski was being “railroaded” it was toward a sentence that more accurately reflected the magnitude of crime he had committed. This wasn’t some guy who got drunk at a party, found himself in bed with a semi-conscious woman, and proceeded to bump scratchies without explicit consent; this was a deliberate, thought-out plan to commit rape on an underage and incapacitated victim.
As for claims that justice has been served by the passage of years, and that Polanski performed this act out of some kind of diminished capacity due to the horrific murder of his wife, I can’t say that I buy it. Polanski has had plenty of time and support to provide a vigorous legal defense and appeal against any judicial chicanery, and his displayed behavior toward women prior to and during his marriage of Ms. Tate makes this particular act unsurprising. Whether he would commit this crime now is not at issue; he admittedly did commit this crime at the time of his plea agreement, and was able to avoid incarceration only by the extraordinary measure of fleeing the country via exceptional financial and personal resources unavailable to the average defendant. Far from being a victim of the system, he’s a poster-child example of how wealthy and famous people can use their resources to evade just punishment and get away with felony crimes with out repentance.
Polaski is a fine filmmaker, but he is a detestable human being, and a three year sentence in a low security prison for statutory rape is frankly too good for him.
Stranger
I wonder if Polanski was like this back before his pregnant wife was murdered, or if the situation just fucked him up so much that this is what he became?
He led a rough and ready life before that - he was a child in wartime Europe, separated from his parents, surviving by his wits, witnessing all kinds of horrors. I suspect that this affected him. None of what he went through is an excuse, but those kinds of experiences can make one very callous about hurting others and about conventional morality.
How long should he stay in prison? A ten year prison sentence in a California prison is pretty much a death sentence for a man his age. Should he die in prison? Is that excessive? I honestly don’t know.
Well, it didn’t stop them from sentencing Phil Spector to what will probably be the rest of his life in CA prison.
True.
At the moment, I’m favoring putting him in prison til he’s on his deathbed, and then letting him go home to die.
It’s not cruel. After all, if he’d done his time as sentenced, he’d have given up some of his prime years of wine women and cash.
A death sentence for a man his age isn’t really that big of a deal.
I was reading with interest about how John Phillips was good friends with Roman Polanski, and it ties in strangely with Susan Atkins dying recently - it seems like a bad old brew is being stirred up.