I thought the psych evaluation was not part of the sentence. I thought it was a mandatory evaluation component of the felony sex offence he was pleading to since the victim was less than 14 years old. It was to determine if he was a “Mentally Disordered Sex Offender” that would have involved him ending up on the 70’s version of a sex offenders list.
wait, so if a 43 year old man admits to sex with a 13 year old girl, then we sould presume he’s guilty of any other charge levied against him?
If you were on a jury trying a man for theft and you knew that the accused had stolen before, would you presume he’d done the stealing this time? what if this time he’s accused of murder in connection with a theft he’s owned up to, does his earlier theft persuade you of his guilt?
I think a 43 year old man having sex with a 13 year old is all kinds of wrong but I agree that the drugging and sexual assault claims are more unsavory.
Apparently, it says someone can go stick a dick up your 13 year old childs ass and its the drugging part thats “really” going to piss you off…
if that’s what you take away from it, it really says something. it says that you’re either intentionally being obtuse or are unintentionally stupid.
Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. 
The other part of this is that whatever sentence he would have gotten, he could appeal, and probably would have done OK given the rumors of misconduct by the prosecution/judge. Instead, he decided to piss on our system. He’s never owned up to what he did and he should be punished.
Justrob, I’m really not sure other than what I read in that linked article. Judge is dead and RP ran, so it’s possible we’ll never know.
To my knowledge, and correct me if I’m wrong, in this particular case he’s never denied the girl’s version of events. That, while it doesn’t of course prove her version is true in a court of law, certainly indicates to my mind that it is.
Sure he did, at least implicitly, by not admitting them. He is not required to provide anything beyond that and cannot be compelled to do more.
If I’m his lawyer, I’m telling him to say nothing to anyone outside of a courtroom.
Couldn’t agree more.
I can’t guarantee my interpretation is correct either but I got it from the the transcript of the plea hearing. Of course there were no numbers mentioned so it could be something completely different.
What are you talking about? He fled the jurisdiction. Obviously he couldn’t give a shit about the legal effect of what he might say in the 30 years he’s been on the lam. 
Are you seriously contending that he hasn’t, you know, mentioned that he didn’t rape the kid while he’s been in exile, because it might prejudice his case? I mean, how on earth is that even a factor?
I have a question.
This, as I understand it, happened at Jack Nicholson’s house. What, if any, was his role this situation? I know he was never charged, but if I’d known a guest raped another guest in my living room, I’d be all kinds of put out.
No role at all.
Jack Nicholson inspires me. He is a wee bit older than me and is regularly photographed with white powder around his nostrils.
THAT is the way to be!
Yes, fuck anyone who has a differing opinion than my own - especially if they make said opinion publicly known!
what
Was that a response to my OP? In which case, yes, fuck people who support child rapists.
Here are some relevant quotes from the most recent CNN article.
I should add that I am in no way defending what Polanski did and I do think that he should face more punishment than he already has. I am only pointing out that I don’t think Polanski believed that he was avoiding a slap on the wrist sentence.
I think he believed he didn’t do anything at all wrong and so any punishment would seem like more than a slap on the wrist to him.
Who is a child rapist and how do you know he is one? Certainly Polanski was never convicted of rape. He did plead guilty to unlawful intercourse but that is hardly the same as rape. Unless you are equate statutory rape with forcible rape. If you make no distinction then you are a cretinous chowder-head. It is an unfortunate dual-use of the same word for two very different things. I would never consider sex with a young woman “rape” one day before her 18th birthday (different in some states) but “making love” one day later.
I will not eat the shit that Nancy Grace and her ilk spew. Having sex with a person one day shy of legal age is illegal, absolutely. But that action should not share a name with forcible rape. Too many people do not have the intellectual tools to recognize there is a vast difference between the two. We have seen examples of lynch-mob mentally like that in this very thread-- “Rape is rape!!! KILL the motherfucker!” And we wonder why political scare-tactics work so easily in this country!
Now, it is possible that RP forced the girl to have sex. IF that is true and IF it were proven in a court THEN we are talking about rape. But simply because the girl alleged that she said ‘no’, or because she was only 13 years old is no reason to string the guy up for something that he presumably did NOT do. (Tip: here’s a little secret that Nancy Grace won’t tell you: in the U.S. the accused is presumed to be innocent. Remember, I’m talking about forcible rape here–not the unlawful intercourse RP pled guilty to).
But it is also possible (although I think it unlikely) that RP did not have sex with the girl *at all *yet pled guilty to the least-serious charge in order to avoid the risk of being severely punished for the that charge as well as the more serious charges of crimes that (by this hypothetical) he didn’t commit.
Anyone still think that no one on death-row is innocent? Really? When people who voice opinions like the ones we’ve seen in this thread are allowed to serve on juries?