To all the celebrities supporting Roman Polanski's release

The BBQ Pit
101

Mostly “a” but also a bit of “c”, perhaps.

With reference to “b”, it has not been established what happened. We only have a formal accusation and testimony before a Grand Jury from the accuser. But I want to make it clear that I don’t believe violence must be used in a crime of forcible rape. “Mere” coercion can be enough to get the deed done. IMO, coercion makes it every bit as forcible as if physical violence had been employed.

About item “c”. It’s true that we don’t have adequate impartial information to characterize the act(s) that took place, but that doesn’t mean we should default to calling it “unlawful sex”. Polanski did plead guilty to unlawful intercourse so I think it’s fair to say that at the very least, “unlawful sex” occurred.

102

I think you miss my point. Of course the responsibility lies with the adult. Legally speaking, it lies with the adult right up to the day before the minor achieves majority.

What I am saying is it should not be termed a “rape”. I believe the same word (rape) should not be used to refer to both consensual sex with a minor, AND, forcible rape of anyone regardless of age.

This is tangential to the Polanski case–he may have indeed been guilty of BOTH unlawful sex with a minor AND forcible rape. That has not been determined.

103

Despicable. Also, not germane.
Earlier you said:

As I pointed out to you before–these are not facts, they are accusations. No matter how much you and the pitchfork 'n torch crowd would get off on it, we don’t send people to prison based merely on accusations.

104

People: The legal standard is that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not that they are innocent. So stop with this "He’s only guilty if the court says he is nonsense. That isn’t how it works. You’re guilty the second you commit the crime.

As for the case, here’s what we know.

The girl and he both admit to having anal sex. So that’s pretty much a given.
By the definition (or statute) of rape in this country, that, in and of itself makes the guy guilty of rape. Statutory, if you’ll actually look it up, just means “by the statute.” In other words, it’s legally rape.

So we know the guy is at least guilty of something. Now we take in our common sense. If you’re guilty of something, do you plea bargain to get the same, a lower, or higher conviction? Obviously, the lower. It would be against your best interest to cop to something worse than you did, and pointless to cop to the exact same thing you did. So we know that the guy did something besides just having sex with the girl. Something that could get him in more legal trouble. What’s left? Rape.

Knowing this, we add in what the girl says happened. As far as I know, hers is the only testimony that claims that something worse happened. Neither consensual partners nor rape victims usually lie to increase what has happened, so her testimony seems quite legit in and of itself.

Then we add in that the guy gave the girl money. Since he did so while a case was going on, it is likely a bribe. Why would the guy bribe her if all he had done was what he confessed to? The court already knows that. It makes sense that he wanted her not to give her testimony.

Now, we haven’t even factored in that he ran, and yet the girl’s story seems legit. Honestly, if I were on the jury, I’d think we’d have enough to convict
But let’s factor in the fact that the guy ran before trial could commence. Innocent people may run if they think the case is overwhelming, but we’ve already established that he is at least guilty of rape. So why does a guilty man run? Generally to escape prosecution. He indicated by his confession that he was willing to take it when he thought he’d only be convicted of unlawful sex. So it again makes sense that it must have been something more. And what is the only hypothesis that provides something more? The girl’s testimony.

I fail to see how a reasonable person could, with these facts, conclude the guy didn’t rape the girl as she described. So now, assuming this new level of guilt, of course we want him to be punished in the severest possible way.

Did I at any point argue that my conclusion should be enough to convict? Not a chance. Does that mean I’ll trust the jury’s verdict? Not unless they can provide a better explanation than I have. This isn’t news. People make their own judgments.

Now, I refuse to look at anyone’s name, so I’m not prejudiced in my judgment. But whoever said that “he didn’t admit to rape,” we all admitted that. You’ve made your point. Shut up. What you miss is that, from a legal standpoint, by statute, a minor cannot legally consent to anything. If you can’t consent, then all sex is rape. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. If you argue that we can’t call the guy guilty until the law (by method of a jury) says he is, then we can’t argue that having sex with a minor is not statutory rape.

105

I’m glad I’m not the only one peeved by this.

I don’t think that’s a commonsense conclusion at all. You’re ignoring the possibility of being convicted for something more serious than what you did; basically, you’re assuming your conclusion.

People make plea bargains because they’re afraid they will receive a greater penalty if they don’t. That doesn’t mean that they’re guilty of a more serious crime, but that they think there is a very real possibility of being convicted. And if you maintain that people not proven guilty in a court of law can still be guilty in fact, you should have no trouble accepting that someone found guilty can be factually innocent.

As someone better versed in the topic than me said:

"The major problem with plea bargaining is that it forces the party into a situation where they have to take a guess about what the evidence is, about how strong the case might be, and they have to make that guess against the background of enormously severe penalties if you guess wrong. So defendants, even if they have strong defenses, and even if they are innocent, in fact face enormous pressure to play the odds and to accept a plea. And the more likely they are to be innocent, and the more strong their defenses are, the bigger discount and the bigger benefits the prosecutor will offer them. Eventually at some point it becomes so tempting that it might be irresistible, especially when the consequences of guessing wrong are disastrous.

So the result is that the system as a whole doesn’t do what we count on it to do, which is to sort out the guilty people from the innocent people. It doesn’t do that because the guilty people and the innocent people are all faced with the same pressure to plead guilty."

This guy is more blunt: "It is to every defendant’s advantage whether guilty or innocent to accept the plea.

And a third: “Any of us will plead guilty if the disparity between what we’re threatened with if we go to trial and lose, and what we get if we don’t is increased enough.”

**
I believe Roman Polanski is a rapist who should do time.** But pleading guilty to one crime is not proof of greater legal guilt, nor is it even absolute proof of guilt at all.

106

We are not talking about legal guilt. We are talking about moral guilt.

This doesn’t make any sense. Pleading guilty isn’t proof of any kind of guilt? It is certainly proof of legal guilt. And it is very strong evidence of moral guilt as well.

The presumption of innocence is a legal fiction. We do not adopt this standard because it generally corresponds with reality. It doesn’t. Most criminal defendants really did, in fact, do what they are accused of doing. We adopt the standard because we weight certain kinds of errors (that an innocent person might be convicted) much, much more heavily than other kinds of errors (that a person of a certain crime might escape with less punishment than he deserves, or even none).

No one is here arguing that we should abandon the standard in a court of law. But it often becomes silly and counter-productive to adopt it as if it were a general law of life.

Roman Polanski raped a girl in the ass. He agreed to a plea bargain where he pled guilty to a lesser charge than rape to avoid jail time. He then reneged and fled the country because he was afraid he would get jail time after all.

That’s what happened. We know this in the same way we know that OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. The courts can say otherwise for purposes our society agrees on. But that doesn’t change the reality of what really happened.

Regards,
Shodan

107

Here’s a link to a (rather long) discussion of Polanski’s plea hearing, including much of the actual testimony. It mostly purports to show that he was fully aware that the sentence he’d receive might be substantial, but is of interest in other ways as well.

108

Just to be clear, I couldn’t care less what you call Polanski or what you think he did to a 13 year old girl. But, when you say he confessed to drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl, I will continue to point out that you’re wrong. Simply wrong. That might be nothing new for you.

109

I don’t know how you missed the distinction between between legal and actual guilt in my post or the one I was responding to, but it’s there. Explicitly. Several times.

On the one hand, we have several legal experts claiming that the plea bargain process pressures people into pleading guilty to crimes they did not commit. On the other hand, we have Shodan asserting otherwise. Or, if you don’t like appeals to authority, on the one hand we have logic:

Whereas,

  • Defendants are sometimes convicted of crimes they haven’t committed, and
  • Defendants are generally aware of this fact, and
  • Defendants are sometimes offered light penalties if they plead guilty, and
  • Said defendants are threatened with severe penalties if they refuse, and
  • Defendants prefere light penalties to severe ones
    Therefore
  • Some defendants will agree to a plea bargain regardless of their actual guilt.

On the other hand, we have Shodan asserting otherwise.

I am not arguing that Polanski is not guilty. (I would have thought that was clear from the bolded text in my previous post, but maybe not.) I am stating what I think should be self-evident but apparently is not: Pleading guilty to one crime does not mean one is guilty of a greater crime. Nor in fact, does it mean one is actually guilty of the crime one pleads to in a legalistic sense.

Saying that a finding or admission of guilt in a court of law equals actual guilt while maintaining that a presumption of innocence does not equal actual innocence is confused thinking at best.

110

Or else you’re just an idiot.

Regards,
Shodan