This situation is really getting silly. I'm polish - here in tv they were talking about it like it was the most important thing in the world. The fact is that he did what he did, now its time to anwser for it. But, of course, everyone have a right to a fair trail, and he should be defended (and he will be). He shouldn't be treated anyway special though, but knowing how celebrities are treated i wouldn't be surprised if they let him go. Whole situation is kinda sick for me. I'm really curious how this will end.
Should Roman Polanski be defended?
- Thread starter Krunkcity3000
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Here's the funny thing: he pled guilty, hence why the statute of limitations hasn't ran out on him. He ran after the prosecutor turned on his plea and started talking about jail time on statutory rape and the giving of controlled substances to a minor. This is in a state where the jails are overloaded already and are having to toss non-violent offenders out onto the street because the prisons and budget can't handle it.WanderFreak said:
Again, the victim, who is now in her forties, does not want the charges upheld.
Surely you must be joking. As most people are forgetting as you did too he did not just commit rape. He drugged her, sodomized her, got arrested, jumped bail, and skipped the country. See how the legal system cannot just let this shit go? What message would that send to any and all criminals. That if they manage to jump bail, direct some good movie, stay away for thirty years, it will all be good after that? You people are mad.The Gentleman said:
He had his trial and he was all ready found guilty. He jumped bail and skipped the country. See?WanderFreak said:
See my two previous answers to the posts I quoted.Swollen Goat said:
Yes he was convicted.Altorin said:
Agreed. No mercy for the pedos.Krunkcity3000 said:
*edit*
I revise my position. Roman Polansky can be forgiven if he willingly lets the inmate population of a prison run a train on him to atone for his sick bullshit. No, no Roman, you take those STDs and that hemorrhaging like a man.
As I said, no mercy. Not even in forgiveness.
boo frickin hoo..Rombauer said:
still doesn't change the fact that rape is rape..and he's guilty. He knew what he did was wrong and proved it by jumping ship to some european country..
Yeah, I can't justify defending Polanski. Many people die, people who are no doubt close to other people, it's sad but that's how life goes, it doesn't excuse this shit.
Because the due process of justice is paramount to the operation of justice. If you suspend the process of justice for a good reason, eventually it'll be suspended for a slightly less good reason.Krunkcity3000 said:
Maintaining due process in all cases, and that includes the right to mount a defence against any charge laid, is the safeguard against abuse of the system.
I think the victims word should be taken with a little more consideration. If she wants the charges dropped and he hasn't been found committing the crime within the 30 years since the charge then I have to wonder, is it really worth spending taxpayers money to continue prosecuting this man and then using more taxpayers money to have him jailed? Really, is it worth spending all that money on a man who more than likely isn't THAT MUCH of a treat. I mean, I'm all for making people do time for their crimes but I don't think that after 30 years and I believe he has kept a clean slate in that time that it's really worth spending money on jail time now.
I think people need to remember:
The reason he skipped the country was the presiding judge at the trial is alleged to be about to overturn his plea/the deal the lawyers made in order to boost his own fame and personal career.
When you have a member of the Judicial system putting their own status before that of justice then I can't blame the man for running, as it was certainly not going to be a "fair trial" - and if I remember correctly, another judge had already agreed when Polanski appealed that the presiding judge in the first trial was corrupt.
He also has done time already. Admittedly only 45 days or something pathetic like that, but it means he has faced what the legal system viewed as "just punishment" for some of the charges (I think it was for providing drugs/alcohol to an under-age girl).
I still think he should be brought to justice, but I highly doubt he will get a fair trial this time around. The whole case is extremely high-profile and I get the feeling that America will "make an example of him". Case-and-point, Polanski has been travelling to Switzerland all throughout the last 30 years (he even oversaw the building of a house there) yet American authorities choose a high-profile event such as an award ceremony to pick him up?
Maybe the victim's feelings will be brought into the equation by the judge, but this poor woman's life is about to be turned upside-down by the media, which is not fair in any sense of the word. She's about to become a victim again, this time to the shoddy practices of modern journalism.
Essentially: Polanski fully deserves to face trial and whatever punishment on the grounds of breaking the law as the State is pushing for a conviction. However I think the whole process of taking on the defendant when the victim doesn't want the charges to be upheld is a difficult situation, and that the trial is unlikely to be fair and there is a real risk of an "example" being made of the man instead of proper justice.
The reason he skipped the country was the presiding judge at the trial is alleged to be about to overturn his plea/the deal the lawyers made in order to boost his own fame and personal career.
When you have a member of the Judicial system putting their own status before that of justice then I can't blame the man for running, as it was certainly not going to be a "fair trial" - and if I remember correctly, another judge had already agreed when Polanski appealed that the presiding judge in the first trial was corrupt.
He also has done time already. Admittedly only 45 days or something pathetic like that, but it means he has faced what the legal system viewed as "just punishment" for some of the charges (I think it was for providing drugs/alcohol to an under-age girl).
I still think he should be brought to justice, but I highly doubt he will get a fair trial this time around. The whole case is extremely high-profile and I get the feeling that America will "make an example of him". Case-and-point, Polanski has been travelling to Switzerland all throughout the last 30 years (he even oversaw the building of a house there) yet American authorities choose a high-profile event such as an award ceremony to pick him up?
Maybe the victim's feelings will be brought into the equation by the judge, but this poor woman's life is about to be turned upside-down by the media, which is not fair in any sense of the word. She's about to become a victim again, this time to the shoddy practices of modern journalism.
Essentially: Polanski fully deserves to face trial and whatever punishment on the grounds of breaking the law as the State is pushing for a conviction. However I think the whole process of taking on the defendant when the victim doesn't want the charges to be upheld is a difficult situation, and that the trial is unlikely to be fair and there is a real risk of an "example" being made of the man instead of proper justice.
I think screwing a 13-year-old, then drugging her, raping and sodomising her is pretty unforgivable. It doesn't matter that half his family was killed by the Nazis and that his wife got hacked up by Charles Manson. That his victim wants it all to go away is irrelevant - people cannot have their sentences determined by how well or badly the victim has taken the assault.
A huge number of people who have spoken up for him should know better.
A huge number of people who have spoken up for him should know better.