Should Roman Polanski be defended?

[murphy7801]

If she doesn't want to prosecute its not are business to force a case. Also wasn't rape it sex with a minor.

 

[Shaoken]

I am having the hardest time understanding how anyone is defending this guy. I know a big argument is that the "victim" has moved on and wants to drop charges. However, they guy broke a major law and has to do the time for it no matter how the victim feels about it.

One of my friends put it to me this way; some of the people defending him (such as Whoopi Goldberg saying what happened wasn't "rape-rape") have this preconcieved notion that if it's not violent stranger rape then it's not rape period. They would see it as concentual and would support Polanski's claims that the girl was "sexually experienced." (How the fuck someone can say a drugged 13-year-old is sexually experienced is beyond me.)

Well of course he deserves to be defended because he should still have the right to a fair trial, whatever the severity of his crime is.

He all ready did. He was convicted. He then jumped bail and skipped the country.

And the thing is he didn't even get a trial; he plead guilty pretty quickly. As far as I know he's never attempted to deny his guilt of the crime.

Again, the victim, who is now in her forties, does not want the charges upheld.

Doesn't matter. He's already plead guilty to the rape, he's shortchanged the victim on the private settlement, and he fled the states before sentancing, which is a major crime. Even if they decided not to use his confession and dropped the rape charge, he's still guilty as sin of fleeing justice.

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.

And what you need to remember is that all of this happened after he [/b]plead[/b] guilty. Getting a fair trial is irrelevant in this conversation because he wouldn't have gotten a trial anyway; he plead out without showing an inch of remorse for what he did (again, his defense was she was sexually experienced).

So the bottom line is that the only controversy is what Polanski's sentance was, not the question of his guilt. And the fact is, he could have simply waited to be sentanced and then appealed his sentance. The only reason he ran was because his inital deal was no-jail time period.

No jail time. For the rape of a 13-year-old girl. Fame be damned, if I was that judge I would have thrown the deal out (something which is within their rights to do) simply because it was sickining and a miscarriage of justice.

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).

No, it wasn't viewed as just punishment. It was something the inital judge ordered to happen while he reviewed the case. In the eyes of the law he has not served a day of his sentance.

I still think he should be brought to justice, but I highly doubt he will get a fair trial this time around.

How the hell can you say that? He plead guilty to the rape, and he quite clearly fled the country to avoid sentancing. All the prosecution needs to do is stand up and say "Here is his confession from 30 years ago. Here is his travel records showing him leaving the United States before he could be sentanced. The Prosecution rests" and they've won the case.

The whole case is extremely high-profile and I get the feeling that America will "make an example of him".

And if they let him go on the evading justice charge, then it'll pave the way for every fugitive who left the country to fight the vadility of their charges using Polanski's case as precident. It would be a major blow to the United States Criminal Justice system and would pretty much be such a legal and judical headache no sane judge would even consider it.

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?

They've consistantly had trouble being able to actually get him due to various legal reasons. I'd also like to counter that he's avoided countries that have an extradition treaty with the US (except for France, because the French Government are dicks and refused to extradite him).

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.

Well that's not the legal system's fault. And it would still happen even if they let him go. It's a lose-lose situation either way.

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.

How can they make an example out of the man exactly? By giving him exactly what he deserves by convicting him of evading arrest?

 

[Shaoken]

Also wasn't rape it sex with a minor.

He drugged her. He molested her. She constantly said no. He sodomised her. There is no. Fucking. Way. That this is anything but rape.

 

[Superbeast]

@Shaoken - I don't want to quote the whole of the massive post, as by-and-large I agree with the premise that Polanski needs to be brought to true justice for raping a minor. I was pretty much playing devil's advocate, but there are two points you "countered" that I would like to pick up on:

And if they let him go on the evading justice charge, then it'll pave the way for every fugitive who left the country to fight the vadility of their charges using Polanski's case as precident. It would be a major blow to the United States Criminal Justice system and would pretty much be such a legal and judical headache no sane judge would even consider it.

Which is why I worry of an "example" being made.

As in, getting the maximum penalties possible, or even exceeding standard practice, to prove to other criminals that the American Justice System triumphs over all. For example the maximum practice would be 5 years in prison and 5 years tagged on the "sex offenders" list (though I know this varies by state, and I do not know where the sentencing would be held), but when things like time for skipping bail, fleeing the country and all that are added on, I would not be surprised if he doesn't get triple that (with no bail). That doesn't seem like justice, as he hasn't (to French authorities' knowledge) raped anyone else in the last 30 years, so he's hardly a "risk to society".

They can't let him off - no where do I actually advocate that, but rather getting more of a punishment than he deserves (though what level that is does admittedly vary - he's admitted guilt yet the victim doesn't want the charges pursued; he's evaded justice but because he was "double-crossed" by a judge seeking a reputation).

They've consistantly had trouble being able to actually get him due to various legal reasons. I'd also like to counter that he's avoided countries that have an extradition treaty with the US (except for France, because the French Government are dicks and refused to extradite him).

My point was that I know he's lived in France (non-extradition treaty as they believe the US treats their citizens like dicks, and Polanski is a French citizen now), but he has travelled to many countries that do indeed have an extradition treaty with the States - this isn't the first time he's been to Switzerland, and the authorities have generally been aware of his movements. They were (IMO) just waiting for a more high-profile time to grab him - any time he left French territory in the last 30 years it was possible to arrest him, but they didn't.


Finally, though he has admitted sex with the girl, there are some odd circumstances around the case - exactly what did her parents think was going to happen when she was asked for modelling shoots alone with this man? They too need some responsibility for what was going on (and isn't it illegal to leave children without parental supervision? Or did they have different modelling regulations back in the 70s? Not really relevant I grant you, but certainly a bit weird.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Technically raping a minor three times in one session. Then running from the law. Drugging the minor. The victim is allowed to forgive him all she wants. The law doesn't have that luxury nor should it.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

It doesn't. The fact he did it in the 70s kinda does.

Not if he wasn't punished for it.

He is a one time rapist. Also, his wife was murdered by the Manson "family" when she was 8 months-pregnnant of his child. His mother was killed during the Holocaust and he barely made it out of the Krakow ghetto alive himself when he was a small child. Also, one of his films, The Pianist, is one of my favourite films ever.

That being said, while I do amdire the man, both for his film work and the shit he passed through, the rape of a 13 year old is something you should do the time for, despite the time that has passed in the meanwhile or whether or not your victim has already forgiven you and put it past them. Still, maybe a shortened sentence...

 

[Azraellod]

Well, I'd never actually heard of him, so I looked him up.

I have some sympathy for his situation in life, but I still see what he did as completely wrong. However, I'm a little stuck as to what his punishment should be. I don't want him to suffer more, he's already had a horrible time, but I cant think of a way to deal with the situation. My usual approach would be to say life in prison or the death penalty, as fits my belief that the law should be used for protection rather then deterrent/retribution, but I just feel too sorry for this man to really consider those solutions appropriate.

 

[Pendragon9]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU ALL?!

How many criminal offenses do you need to go to jail? Huh? Drug abuse, rape, pedophilia, fleeing the country, and so on. DOES HE HAVE TO MURDER THE GIRL FOR YOU TO GET THE POINT ACROSS?!

Roman is dead to me, and I hope he suffers a horrid death for what he did. There is nothing you can say to make me feel even the slightest amount of pity for this person.

"OH BOO HOO HIS WIFE DIED, THAT MEANS HE'S INNOCENT!"

Oh great. So that means if my wife ever died, than I can go out and rape little girls and I'll get off scott free. Thanks for that.

"BUT IT HAPPENED A LONG TIME AGO! WE SHOULD JUST FORGET THE PAST!"

Yeah, try telling that to World War veterans and Holocaust victims. You don't just forget things like that. When you do, history repeats itself.

Seriously, has the justice system been skewed so much?

And I refuse to acknowledge anyone who thinks of defending him.

 

[Garzo]

I'm glad to see that most of the people on this forum have a bit of sense about it. There are plenty of people who have horrible things happen to them and those around them and they don't go on to rape 13 year old girls. In fact most of them manage to make do without raping anyone.

 

[GDW]

No. His movies suck.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

I am having the hardest time understanding how anyone is defending this guy.

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.

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.

Plus here's the current precident with this case:

Plead guilty and, regardless of the plea deal made beforehand, the system can incarcerate you for however long it deems necessary, and after you skip bail, can hunt you down for the rest of your life regardless of the charge; OR

Plead not guilty and skip bail and run until the statute of limitations prevents charges being upheld.

Which one is justice again?

The US justice system is one of the most unjust in the developed world. There are more prisoners than China and no reason to believe it is getting any better. California has one of the largest overcrowding problems in the US and the USSC is about to look at incarceeration practices for violent juvinile sex offenders as a violation of jurisprudence. Polanski was a one time offender who does not have a patern of repeating that crime while on the run in Europe, a crime which the victim asked for the charges to be dropped. As a matter of jurisprudence, the warrent for his arrest should have expired years ago.

 

[luckshot]

he had his chance at a trial, was convicted and then fled before he could be sentenced.

let him rot in jail for the rest of his life as the child molester that he is

 

[Silencer13]

Guys a child molester. He should shut up and go to jail.

Edit: The stupid people defending him are probably be watching, To Catch a Predator, and seeing nothing wrong. Just stupid.