View Full Version : The Polanski case
(
Edit: the question of the survey bugged >_<. Te question is "Do you think that given the US laws, Polanski should be judged for the crime he has done, even if it happened 32 years ago?"
)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski#Sex_crime_conviction
For those who are lazy to click (please, read if you have not all the infos about this case, before replying)
Sex crime conviction
In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Samantha Geimer). It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[33]
According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer's mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, "Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him." She added, "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want to go back to the second shoot."
Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the Mulholland area home of actor Jack Nicholson in Los Angeles. "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this".[34]
Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes[35], a sedative drug, and "despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her"[36][37][38], each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.[39][40][41][42]
Charges and guilty plea
Polanski was initially charged[43] with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[44]
Following the plea agreement, according to the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay of ninety days to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad. Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days. On February 1, 1978, Polanski fled to London, where he maintained residency. A day later he traveled on to France, where he held citizenship, avoiding the risk of extradition to the U.S. by Britain. Consistent with its extradition treaty with the United States, France can refuse to extradite its own citizens. An extradition request later filed by U.S. officials was denied. The United States government could have requested that Polanski be prosecuted on the California charges by the French authorities.[45]
Polanski has never returned to England, and later sold his home there. The United States could still request the arrest and extradition of Polanski from other countries should he visit them, and Polanski avoided visits to countries (such as the UK) that were likely to extradite him and mostly travels and works in France, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland.
In a 2003 interview,[46] Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us." Furthermore, "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it". In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever - besides me - and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."[47]
In 2008, a documentary film of the aftermath of the incident, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. Following review of the film, Polanski's attorney, Douglas Dalton, contacted the Los Angeles district attorney's office about prosecutor David Wells' role in coaching the trial judge, Laurence J. Rittenband. Based on statements by Wells included in the film, Polanski and Dalton are seeking review of whether the prosecutor acted illegally and engaged in malfeasance in interfering with the operation of the trial.[48]
In December 2008, Polanski's lawyer in the United States filed a request to Judge David S. Wesley to have the case dismissed on the grounds of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The filing says that Judge Rittenband (now deceased) violated the plea bargain by keeping in communication about the case with a deputy district attorney who was not involved. These activities were depicted in Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.[49]
In January 2009, Polanski's lawyer filed a further request to have the case dismissed, and to have the case moved out of Los Angeles, as the Los Angeles courts require him to appear before the court for any sentencing or dismissal, and Polanski did not intend not appear. In February 2009, Polanski's request was tentatively denied by Judge Peter Espinoza, who said that he would make a ruling if Polanski appeared in court.[50][51] The same month, Samantha Geimer filed to have the charges against Polanski dismissed from court, saying that decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor's focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family.[52]
Arrest in Zürich
On September 26, 2009, Polanski was arrested by Swiss police at Zürich Airport while trying to enter Switzerland, in relation to his outstanding 1978 U.S. arrest warrant. Polanski had hoped to attend the Zurich Film Festival to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award.[53][54] The arrest followed a request by the United States that Switzerland apprehend Polanski. U.S. investigators had learned of his planned trip several days earlier, which had given them enough time to negotiate with Swiss authorities and lay the groundwork for an arrest. The United States had been seeking his arrest and extradition worldwide since 2005. While there had been a U.S. arrest warrant for him since 1978 and he had been on the Interpol "red notice" wanted list for several years[55], an international arrest warrant was issued in 2005. The United States must make a formal extradition request within 40 days to have Polanski extradited and stand trial.[56]
The Swiss Justice Ministry said Polanski was put "in provisional detention." An arrest warrant or extradition to the United States could be subject to judicial review by the Federal Criminal Court (Bundesstrafgericht) and then the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgericht), according to a ministry spokesman.[57] Polanski announced that he intends to appeal extradition and hired lawyer Lorenz Erni to represent him[58][59] Until the extradition procedure is resolved, Polanski is held in a one-person cell in the Zürich jail, where he remains confined for 23 hours each day.[60]
In reaction to the arrest, the foreign ministers of both France and Poland urged Switzerland to release Polanski, who holds dual citizenship of both countries.[61] The arrest provoked particular outrage in France, where over the years many had downplayed the severity of Polanski's crime, highlighting instead his achievements as a film director and the many years that had passed since his flight from the U.S.[62] In Switzerland, the arrest caused widely varying reactions in the media and in politics, while Swiss minister of justice Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf defended the arrest as legally required under the Swiss-U.S. extradition treaty and as a matter of equality before the law.[
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aqCrHN8qbPk8
Beside what other celebrities and "colleagues" are saying about him, I would want to know what other americans think about this case (mostly), but other people can vote and give their opinions too.
As a reminder, Roman Polanski had a sexual relationship with a 13yo girl in 1977 on the US territory (whether it is a rape [The girl said so] or not doesn't change the fact that having sex with a 13yo minor is illegal). And, to avoid to be judged, he fled from the USA to Europe.
32 years.
Now he got arrested in Switzerland, and the USA still want to judge him.
The question, imo, is not that the girl he raped had sex with with 32 years ago said that the US DOJ should leave him free (My guess is that she was paid to withdraw her complaint :rolleyes: but it's a personal opinion) , I think that case raises two problems:
- His colleagues ( :rolleyes: ) and many people from Europe claims that after 32 years, there should be a Prescription for his crime, and so, that the case is too old to be judged.
- I think we can't forget the fact that he "fled". Beside the fact that he is a coward and a loser (sorry if I offend his fans), I think it should be something highly punishable and unforgivable, and a crime.
\\\\\\\\
So, what do you think of it?
Should the USA act as if there was prescription?
Do you think that many people are easy on Polanski because he's a celebrity, while they would not care at all if it was a common person?
What do you think of the statute of limitation / Prescription? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations
I am supprised than it had take so much time to someone to post this news on this forum...
Should he be juged after 32 years, honestly I don't know. As far as I know most country than apply a statute of limitation / Prescription, don't apply for some kind of crime ( murder for example). Could the rape of a minor and fleeing the justice be considered heavies offences for not applying the prescription is somethin g to think about it.
Eisdrache
2009-09-29, 07:37
Having sex with underage kids does NOT fall under the statute of limitation neither in the USA nor in Switzerland.
I agree that swiss officials had more than enough chances to arrest Polanski as he was there several times before.
I agree that something has gone wrong before.
I agree that people have to try to discover where it happened and correct it.
BUT WHAT I SIMPLY CANNOT UNDERSTAND is why other people (several other actors, directors, various politicals from France and Poland, an UNESCO secretary, etc) want the swiss goverment to have Polanski released? Honestly I cant think of ONE argument that would justify this. Let him go because his victim has forgiven him? Because he is a famous director? Because he was on his way to receive a prize for his life work? NO JUST NO. He is a criminal who broke the law and should be punished. Its as simple as that. There are no "Switzerland bends to the USA because of their fight over the UBS bank affair" arguments, no "swiss police invited Polanski as a trap to arrest him" ideas, arguments like those are NOT VALID.
Polanski has to follow the law like everyone else and does not stand above it. If he broke the law and is internationally searched by Interpol then arresting him is absolutely right.
Sorry for the extensive use of caps lock, Im just pissed by the arguments of the Polanski side.
Its so simple that I can't bear it. If you remove all these complexities, what he's done is a crime and that's it. There's nothing else to it. What saddens me the most is why we even have to discuss this. Its so simple.( I love saying that. The simpler, the better (FoMahBrain))
Woopzilla
2009-09-29, 07:58
BUT WHAT I SIMPLY CANNOT UNDERSTAND is why other people (several other actors, directors, various politicals from France and Poland, an UNESCO secretary, etc) want the swiss goverment to have Polanski released? Honestly I cant think of ONE argument that would justify this.
I agree. If this was a random guy then people probably wouldn't be able to care less... they'd be applauding the arrest of someone who has knowingly dodged justice for the last 32 years; fleeing the country country and avoiding travelling to others because he knows he broke the law and is determined to not be caught.
Statute of limitation does not apply because he pled guilty. He then fled before sentencing because the judge rightfully refuse to honor the prosecution's plea agreement. The prosecution recommended a sentence of "time served". You think maybe the prosecutor was showing some favoritism for Hollywood there? How would you want a judge to react if a man comes into your court and admits to drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 13 year old girl, and then the prosecution says they want you to set him free?
A judge does have the power (rarely used) to overrule a plea agreement in the interests of justice. He can make the sentence shorter than the prosecutor and criminal agreed to. He can also make it longer. I think Polaski knew which way the judge was going, so he jumped bail and fled.
He pled guilty. That means he already waived his right to a trial, and is under the law, guilty. (Also, as near as I can tell, no one seriously contends that he didn't rape the girl).
Furthermore his jumping bail and flight from justice is considered a continuous act, so he can be charged with fleeing justice.
Statue of Limitations is used to prevent people from being charged with old crimes when the evidence and memories are no longer fresh. It has no bearing on people who pled guilty and then fled his punishment.
It's no different from someone who is sent to jail for say 10 years and then breaks free from jail. He doesn't get to say after 32 years have passed that the statute of limitations applies. He doesn't get to say that his sentence is up.
Look, I grasp that he apparently has shown that he is not a repeat offender, as rare as that is.
Doesn't change the fact that he raped a 13 year old girl. A 13 year old can't give consent. He screwed up- big time. And apologies while escaping punishment does not satisfy the demands of justice. I'm glad that he's reformed- but that reformation should have occurred while in prison- and then after he got out he could demonstrate that he's reformed. You don't get a pass on prison time by being a famous and skilled movie director.
I deeply resent the elitist attitude that one set of rules applies to us peons and the elite get to live by another set of rules. It's the same with Chappaquiddick and Kennedy. He got away with stuff that you or I wouldn't, just because he was rich and famous.
That's wrong. And it's wrong for Polanski to escape punishment the way he has.
As for the victim no longer wanting him to be punished, well you know that is something I think can be considered. However it is not the final say on the matter. Justice is not only about avenging the victim, it is also about establishing a set of behavior that society does not tolerate.
Raping 13 year old girls and fleeing justice are activities that society should not tolerate.
Yoko Takeo
2009-09-29, 09:12
The sad thing is that on most cases, justice does take it easy on celebrities. My honest opinion is that it should be much more strict on celebrities because of who they are, and bail should be either much higher than it would be for a normal person, or not at all appliccable because they have the money and everyone knows that. The fact of the matter is that most of the people (not all of them) think that because they are famous, they can get away with anything. The truth is that they can't, whether they can avert punishment or not, because when the public finds out what he's done, his reputation is in shambles.
As for Polanski, the fact that he pled guilty and THEN ran off to hide in France makes him even more of a coward than he would've been if he didn't plead guilty. And he's done it for 32 years at that. Imho, the amount of time doesn't matter. He's done it, he admitted it, and he ran off to avoid punishment for 32 years. Like Sackett said, it's a continuous act. Even if he was running for 100 years, he should still be punished. I have to say that Geimer was very generous to say she's forgiven him, because I certainly wouldn't have. If he really felt sorry, he'd have gone back to the US and paid for the crime he's done willingly rather than being caught by Swiss police.
yezhanquan
2009-09-29, 09:50
All I have to say is: Face up to it, Roman. Stare it down and just get it over with.
I spazzed and accidently voted no... so apologies as I intended to vote yes. I remember this case when it originally transpired -- and I don't recall it being non-consensual (even though it was statutory). So the original details are a bit more complicated...
However, I also never quite grasped why he wasn't arrested decades ago. There were many instances where he was on "grabbable" soil. I suspect that *because* it was originally consensual (and therefore non-violent) that the countries he passed through just blew it off. Interesting that just NOW the Swiss decide to clear their books.
Yoko Takeo
2009-09-29, 09:59
I spazzed and accidently voted no... so apologies as I intended to vote yes. I remember this case when it originally transpired -- and I don't recall it being non-consensual (even though it was statutory). So the original details are a bit more complicated...
However, I also never quite grasped why he wasn't arrested decades ago. There were many instances where he was on "grabbable" soil. I suspect that *because* it was originally consensual (and therefore non-violent) that the countries he passed through just blew it off. Interesting that just NOW the Swiss decide to clear their books.
Well, it's not something they should've done since Polanski pled guilty. That's what makes the difference here. If he hadn't, things might have turned out different right about now.
justsomeguy
2009-09-29, 10:01
I suspect that *because* it was originally consensual (and therefore non-violent) that the countries he passed through just blew it off.
Actually, according to Wikipedia, the victim in fact said "No" several times even in her drugged state; hence Polanski did not have consent.
Actually, according to Wikipedia, the victim in fact said "No" several times even in her drugged state; hence Polanski did not have consent.
But then she says "Its' Ok". Its like she's saying Justice is for nothing. It also seems like she's implying that "raping" can be left w/o proper justice-served punishment. I don't really care if she was raped or not, but her choice affects too much of our current understanding of justice and the lack of it. What I care more about is one celebrity(power)-example being brought down. It might be just as how Narona (or did she?) perceived it: the old lady valued money and fame(she wanted to be a model , yeah?)---these *might* have some connections to her apparently shifty position.
I really don't even see what his defense exactly was at this point. Time? Sorry, the only reason he wasn't tried was he fled. To not prosecute him would be a travesty of justice. Honestly, I'd like a harsh sentence for the fleeing and avoiding justice. Dating back to the Magna Carta (the base of English law and in turn the USA's to a degree), there were limitations placed on nobility and the rich...sorry, laws are laws, you break them, you pay the piper.
justsomeguy
2009-09-29, 11:12
Just because she had wanted to be a famous model at 13 years does not mean that she consented to have sex. It could be that her resistance was diminished because Polanski drugged her, or because she was (rationally) afraid that resisting a rich and powerful older male would lead to bad results. The reason she's not condemning him now is because she's moved on with her life after so many years. Who would want to remember bad memories?
@Telmah: He was prosecuted, and plead guilty in some sort of deal. The judge declared the deal to be BS and sentenced him differently, upon which he fled the country.
Just because she had wanted to be a famous model at 13 years does not mean that she consented to have sex. It could be that her resistance was diminished because Polanski drugged her, or because she was (rationally) afraid that resisting a rich and powerful older male would lead to bad results.
The injustice in this... Power creates fear. Fear creates control. Control is power. Thus, power creates more power.
I say, bring him before the court to stand trial... and complete his sentence.
He perverted the course of justice.
1. In bad faith he jumped bail. Is this an example for other rich and powerful people to follow ?
2. He already pleaded guilty to the charges. Therefore take your knocks like a man ! You were certainly a "man" when you were ecstatically shagging a drugged 13 year old girl. Despite having 3 decades of life on her.
Forget morality for a bit, what legal reason should the US justice system let him go ?
I suspect that *because* it was originally consensual (and therefore non-violent) that the countries he passed through just blew it off. Interesting that just NOW the Swiss decide to clear their books.
Actually, according to Wikipedia, the victim in fact said "No" several times even in her drugged state; hence Polanski did not have consent.
Testimony from the trial:
http://imgur.com/XPE1b.png
Actually, according to Wikipedia, the victim in fact said "No" several times even in her drugged state; hence Polanski did not have consent.
ah, thanks for correcting my recollections on the story. It was handled in a fairly tabloid way at the time.
Kusa-San
2009-09-29, 11:43
However, I also never quite grasped why he wasn't arrested decades ago. There were many instances where he was on "grabbable" soil. I suspect that *because* it was originally consensual (and therefore non-violent) that the countries he passed through just blew it off. Interesting that just NOW the Swiss decide to clear their books.
Yes and it's certainly not for nothing that's happening now....(who said tax havens :rolleyes: )
Well anyway Polansky must be judge and go to jail for what he did. There is no exception even for (in)famous people :mad: !
Actually, according to Wikipedia, the victim in fact said "No" several times even in her drugged state; hence Polanski did not have consent.
Originally, if i understood correctly the case, there wasn't any consent. They just made a deal that reduced the sentence from 30 years of prison to 4 years if he was pleading guildty for sexual intercourse with a 13yo girl, sodomy, that he drugged her etc. but not rape. Originally there was 5 charges against him, including Rape.
So there's little to no doubt about all that he has done.
What made me want to vomit is how his lawyers tried to save him during the trial. Example:
"The defendant acknowledges to have given her champagne to make her drunk, to have given her barbiturate, and even if she objected and said No many times, penetrated her in her mouth, her vagina, and her anus."
His lawyers: "Objection! The girl's physical appearence can have confused him about her age!" (as if she was 20-25)
Now, Samantha at 13yo as she was when he raped her:
http://e.pardon.pl/pa599/7872f7a300047ea048479cf1
Really? I mean... really...?
Just because she had wanted to be a famous model at 13 years does not mean that she consented to have sex. It could be that her resistance was diminished because Polanski drugged her, or because she was (rationally) afraid that resisting a rich and powerful older male would lead to bad results. The reason she's not condemning him now is because she's moved on with her life after so many years. Who would want to remember bad memories?
@Telmah: He was prosecuted, and plead guilty in some sort of deal. The judge declared the deal to be BS and sentenced him differently, upon which he fled the country.
She did again like others have noted say no. Yes, she was drugged, in other factors go to the wayside in that case, at least that's the way I feel. Finally, once complaint is filed, I think it is out of her hands anyway.
When you come to another country, you are forced to obey their laws or suffer the conquences. If you don't like their legal system with its quirks, then don't go there or don't do anything wrong.
I read in Europe, if you get a DIU (ie drunk driving), you can lose your liscence for life. I thought that was pretty harsh until I saw in Cuba, you are executed for it. Laws vary quite a bit from place to place, but a different country is a different country. The US is more open to violence (we have little gun control compared to Europe or Japan), but sexually repressed in contrast. Right or wrong, that's the way it is.
I just don't think he has any ground to stand on--our age of consent is 18, there was no consent, and he used wine and drugs on her--it is an open and shut case in my book.
Originally, if i understood correctly the case, there wasn't any consent. They just made a deal that reduced the sentence from 30 years of prison to 4 years if he was pleading guildty for sexual intercourse with a 13yo girl, sodomy, that he drugged her etc. but not rape. Originally there was 5 charges against him, including Rape.
So there's little to no doubt about all that he has done. I'm guessing that the prosecutor agreed to the plea bargain out of protecting the victim from having to attend the trial (and risking further emotional damage)? A plea agreement in the U.S. (as far as I know) needs the judge to sign off before sentencing; if the judge does not agree that justice has been served, he/she is not bound to accept the agreement, which makes it null.
The fact that Roman Polanski then fleeing the country before sentencing should not mean that he cannot be sentenced in absentia as well.
Is France (or its government) unhappy because of the years now passed, Roman Polanski is a French citizen, both, or some other reason? The statement (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090929/ap_en_ce/eu_switzerland_polanski) by Frederic Mitterand (Culture minister) of the director having been "thrown to the lions" makes it seem like Polanski is some sacrificial lamb... :p OTOH, Poland's prime minister wants more restraint in his Cabinet in defending Roman Polanski.
Edit: Interestingly, Poland has okayed (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090925/od_nm/us_castration) forcible castration on pedophiles...
justsomeguy
2009-09-29, 12:31
Maybe the French are protesting because they don't like "losing" to England/USA.
Is France (or its government) unhappy because of the years now passed, Roman Polanski is a French citizen, both, or some other reason? The [url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090929/ap_en_ce/eu_switzerland_polanski]statement[/url by Frederic Mitterand (Culture minister) of the director having been "thrown to the lions" makes it seem like Polanski is some sacrificial lamb... :p OTOH, Poland's prime minister wants more restraint in his Cabinet in defending Roman Polanski.
You know, I am ashamed of the french government.
(edit: I removed a part, to avoid problems...)
About Polanski, he said that his arrestation was
"De le voir ainsi jeté en pâture pour une histoire ancienne qui n'a pas vraiment de sens et de le voir ainsi seul, emprisonné, alors qu'il se rendait à une manifestation où on allait lui rendre hommage, c'est-à-dire ainsi pris au piège, c'est absolument épouvantable"
"On sait les conditions dans lesquelles c'est arrivé, et de la même manière qu'il y a une Amérique généreuse que nous aimons, il y aussi une certaine Amérique qui fait peur, et c'est cette Amérique là qui vient de nous présenter son visage"
"To see him be throws to the lion about a story that doesn't make sense, to see him incarcerated while he was going to an event who was a tribute about him, to see him trapped, that's absolutely appaling"
"We know how it happened, and while there is a generous America that we like, there's also an America that scares[us, people?], and this is THAT America that showed up".
So he insulted the USA too? Imo, he did.
He also stated something about our president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and about "all the french" (about the French people, he lied obviously):
"The president is following the case with attention, and I think he has the same emotional agreements as me and all the French"
I hate him for saying "all the French", while I think most of us, mere peons, are not ok with that :rolleyes:
He should have said "all polanski's French friends"
Which makes people inclined that Sarkozy is also on Polanski's side.
So? Bleh..............
http://www.lepoint.fr/actualites-societe/2009-09-27/reaction-frederic-mitterrand-cette-histoire-n-a-pas-de-sens/920/0/380868
Kusa-San
2009-09-29, 12:36
I hate him for saying "all the French", while I think most of us, mere peons, are not ok with that :rolleyes:
He should have said "all polanski's French friend"
Same here and yes I think most of the french people are not ok at all with that from what I reand in french forum >_>
Alchemist007
2009-09-29, 12:42
I feel sorry for his past with the murder of his wife and kid, but that no f***ing excuse, yeah you have to pay for your crimes.
Should he be judged, YES. Should he be extradited, NO.
Should he be judged, YES. Should he be extradited, NO.
Why not? Wouldn't not extraditing him cause him to not get judged?
^ That's the point.
So you believe he shouldn't be judged?
EDIT: shouldn't
So you believe he should be judged?
If the Americans can get this guy from the Frenchies cold dead fingers 'ala NRA.
Slice of Life
2009-09-29, 13:05
Has this become one of those France bashing threads already?
Has this become one of those France bashing threads already?
how come?:confused:
Has this become one of those France bashing threads already?
All French people? No. As you can see, I and Kusa for example are french.
But about the Polanski case, I'm all for bashing a lot of people from our government (Frederic Mitterrand to begin with), + many people from the UMP + a LOT of french celebrities, movies producers etc. + a lot of medias and writers
I am French, and I bash even some French people when I think something is really wrong. Nothing's wrong with that.
Well, stupid move for some guy with an american arrest warrant to go to a country with an extradition treaty to the USA.
that lifetime achievement award was a bait!:heh:
Yoko Takeo
2009-09-29, 13:59
that lifetime achievement award was a bait!:heh:
More like, the life time achievement of running from the US justice system :heh:
The US "Justice?" System.
and to heck with Swiss neutrality
UBS AG giving 4,450 Names to U.S. gov sets bad precedent
The Guy should've stayed in France or went to countries like Russia for vacations or something.
The US "Justice?" System.
Los Angeles Police Department
They think Polanski was a stain to LAPD's reputation.
I thought they forgot about him... but i guess not.
autobachs
2009-09-29, 14:47
There is no dispute about his guilt. His later success only helped to illustrate what's wrong with the entertainment business, European justice and the decline of public morals. He is NOT some lamb lead to the slaughter by some Judas goat. He is the Judas goat!
As a believer of meritocracy I was going to come and defend Polansky on the basis of his past work, but given the tendency this thread is showing I think I would be lynched. :heh:
Kusa-San
2009-09-29, 15:16
As a believer of meritocracy I was going to come and defend Polansky on the basis of his past work, but given the tendency this thread is showing I think I would be lynched. :heh:
Then why you posted ?
How can you forgive someone because of his past work ? He commited a crime, he must go to jail. There is no exeption.
autobachs
2009-09-29, 15:17
As a believer of meritocracy I was going to come and defend Polansky on the basis of his past work, but given the tendency this thread is showing I think I would be lynched. :heh:
Roman Polanski Case: Does France Love Child-Rapists, Movie Directors, or Both?
autobachs
2009-09-29, 15:18
I'm gonna make it clear and simple.
Anybody that flees the USA, after pleading guilty, while on bail awaiting sentencing deserves to be dragged back kicking and screaming!
How can you forgive someone because of his past work ? He commited a crime, he must go to jail. There is no exeption.
Meritocracy. If he is jail he is no longer useful in society, moreover he becomes a leech esque being. Outside of jail he would be able to do more contributions to the movie culture world than he would otherwise. Of course I wouldn't mind him going to jail when he retires and is no longer useful. Actually, this 'look to the other side' tacit agreement that had worked for ~35 years can be considered to have been something on these lines.
autobachs
2009-09-29, 15:28
Well, I wonder how forgiving & charitable the Hollywood types would be if their under-aged daughter, niece, sister... was drugged and raped; only to have the rapist serve 40+ days and flee the country?
For those who keep yammering on about how long its been (30+ yrs), they need to keep in mind that Nazi war-criminals are still being held ACCOUNTABLE. Just a couple years ago an 86 yr. old former Nazi was deported and no one can dispute the fact that his crimes were committed long ago.
I'm gonna make it clear and simple.
Anybody that flees the USA, after pleading guilty, while on bail awaiting sentencing deserves to be dragged back kicking and screaming!
Congratulations. You just opened a pretext for invading European countries.
autobachs
2009-09-29, 15:30
Congratulations. You just opened a pretext for invading European countries.
I meant US citizens! if you want to split hairs then go ahead.
US citizens if you want to split hairs.
I mean invade countries harboring criminals wanted in the USA.
Meritocracy. If he is jail he is no longer useful in society, moreover he becomes a leech esque being. Outside of jail he would be able to do more contributions to the movie culture world than he would otherwise. Of course I wouldn't mind him going to jail when he retires and is no longer useful. Actually, this 'look to the other side' tacit agreement that had worked for ~35 years can be considered to have been something on these lines.
http://alenvers.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/guillotine.jpg
Joke aside :p , i'll just say that I strongly disagree with you. The laws are the same for everyone, whether you're a peon or a famous and rich person.
There's no "meritocracy", so there's no reason to apply something like that to him.
Fipskuul
2009-09-29, 15:34
I really don't understand the need to punish him after 30 years, considering that the child molested by Polanski got over it long time ago, and he had already suffered the consequences and got acquitted at the end in the eyes of the community he belongs to, and a non-negligible portion of the society. Yes, his troubled past might have a lot to do with this, and also his actions afterwards telling that it was a single bad mistake not an incident of repetitive nature.
I also didn't understand, if those really happened at the time, why he was given the freedom to flee the country. To me it is a bit late to search for justice, even though it may look as the right thing to do. I think people need to hear what the victim says about this case.
I really don't understand the need to punish him after 30 years, considering that the child molested by Polanski got over it long time ago, and he had already suffered the consequences and got acquitted at the end in the eyes of the community he belongs to, and a non-negligible portion of the society. Yes, his troubled past might have a lot to do with this, and also his actions afterwards telling that it was a single bad mistake not an incident of repetitive nature.
You mean which community? Movies producers? That has no legal value.
I also didn't understand, if those really happened at the time, why he was given the freedom to flee the country. To me it is a bit late to search for justice, even though it may look as the right thing to do. I think people need to hear what the victim says about this case.
Learn to read. No one gave him the right to flee.
http://alenvers.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/guillotine.jpg
Joke aside :p , i'll just say that I strongly disagree with you. The laws are the same for everyone, whether you're a peon or a famous and rich person.
There's no "meritocracy", so there's no reason to apply something like that to him.
Of course there is no meritocracy law, otherwise you would have all the meritless people crying foul. In the modern world meritocracy takes place in the form of under the table and look to the other side deals.
Fipskuul
2009-09-29, 15:48
You mean which community? Movies producers? That has no legal value.The community which tries to give people a message using their art. It may not have a legal value, but they are people of this country/world, hence their opinions do also count as one. You may despise them, you may hate them. That doesn't change the fact that they represent a view. And unless we are living under a dictatorship, their views do count.
Learn to read. No one gave him the right to flee."Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad." I used a different wording to suggest something of similar sort. I think you should learn to read, before ordering others to do so.
Of course there is no meritocracy law, otherwise you would have all the meritless people crying foul. In the modern world meritocracy takes place in the form of under the table and look to the other side deals.
And you would not expect the meritless people crying foul?
BTW, I personally think that he has no more merits than a normal citizen. It would be too easy to say that many people are meritless. For example, a poor person who never succeed in life would have no merit and would go directly to prison in comparison to somebody like Polanski.
You can't apply something like that without clear laws, and a sense of equality between people. Good luck on that.
The community which tries to give people a message using their art. It may not have a legal value, but they are people of this country/world, hence their opinions do also count as one. You may despise them, you may hate them. That doesn't change the fact that they represent a view. And unless we are living under a dictatorship, their views do count.
That still has no legal value.
"Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad." I used a different wording to suggest something of similar sort. I think you should learn to read, before ordering others to do so.
That doesn't include to flee, but to do what you're allowed to do, then to come back.
The US "Justice" System got outmaneuvered. Getting him kicking and screaming isn't an equally cunning way to do a tit-for tat :D
Iorguzzu
2009-09-29, 15:52
Too bad, Polanski was a very good director, many movies for Oscar!
A very cunning one too. Slipping out when opportunity knocked. Too bad one stupid flight to switzerland ruined it all.
Kusa-San
2009-09-29, 16:02
BTW, I personally think that he has no more merits than a normal citizen. It would be too easy to say that many people are meritless. For example, a poor person who never succeed in life would have no merit and would go directly to prison in comparison to somebody like Polanski.
Agreed. There are many citizen who do more useful work for the society than him. Just because he is famous don't mean that what he did/do is more useful for the society.
By the way, it make me sick to see many artist sign a petition for him when the same artist are strongly against illegal download :rolleyes: .
Polanski was well aware that he was researched by the justice. Now he will pay and go to jail. That's all.
and like I said the Lifetime Achievement Award is hard to resist:heh:
Agreed. There are many citizen who do more useful work for the society than him. Just because he is famous don't mean that what he did/do is more useful for the society.
By the way, it make me sick to see many artist sign a petition for him when the same artist are strongly against illegal download :rolleyes: .
Polanski was well aware that he was researched by the justice. Now he will pay and go to jail. That's all.
Exactly. Those people who are mere Peons and work without paying paid for the Restos du Coeur are, for example, great people.
But it doesn't mean that the justice would make a difference with a common worker if one of them uses drugs, rapes and sodomizes a 13yo girl against her will.
By the way, it make me sick to see many artist sign a petition for him when the same artist are strongly against illegal download :rolleyes: .
That was pointed out by a french lawyer. Those artists are not even credible.
Yoko Takeo
2009-09-29, 16:06
The community which tries to give people a message using their art. It may not have a legal value, but they are people of this country/world, hence their opinions do also count as one. You may despise them, you may hate them. That doesn't change the fact that they represent a view. And unless we are living under a dictatorship, their views do count.
How do the views of an art community determine whether or not he deserves judgement? Like Narona said, that has no legal value. Polanski pled guilty and he was sentenced to trial for his crime and fled like a coward before it could be carried out. He's been putting the sentence on hold for this long. The fact that he's been running all the time actually adds to the punishment because even though he admitted his faults, running away proves he doesn't want to pay for it. Yes, the views of the art community may be expressed, but that does not erase the fact that what Polanski has done is wrong.
Of course there is no meritocracy law, otherwise you would have all the meritless people crying foul. In the modern world meritocracy takes place in the form of under the table and look to the other side deals.
You speak of meritocracy. A doctor contributes more to society than a movie producer imho. We're all human beings entitled to the right of knowledge and expression. Meritocracy has nothing to do with this.
Polanski was well aware that he was researched by the justice. Now he will pay and go to jail. That's all.
I think the movie Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired did him real bad. I swear that movie sparked LAPD's interest on him again.
Now He will Regret that stupid trip to Switzerland.
Fipskuul
2009-09-29, 16:13
That still has no legal value.If their opinions affect the people who would make the decision on him, they do matter.
That doesn't include to flee, but to do what you're allowed to do, then to come back.Really? Then if someone had molested a minor in your neighborhood, what would you have thought if the judge would have permitted that person to travel abroad, especially if he has money and friends there? That he will go there and then come back! I hope you are not joking.
Kusa-San
2009-09-29, 16:13
Exactly. Those people who are mere Peons and work without paying paid for the Restos du Coeur are, for example, great people.
But it doesn't mean that the justice would make a difference with a common worker if one of them uses drugs, rapes and sodomizes a 13yo girl against her will.
Exactly :)
That was pointed out by a french lawyer. Those artists are not even credible.
It's because they have no copyright on the girl :rolleyes:
If their opinions affect the people who would make the decision on him, they do matter.
I will repeat as many times as I have to. What you express has no legal value.
Really? Then if someone had molested a minor in your neighborhood, what would you have thought if the judge would have permitted that person to travel abroad, especially if he has money and friends there? That he will go there and then come back! I hope you are not joking.
He pled guildty and asked the right to finish his last work, and I guess, promised to come back. That means his lawyers were also perfectly aware that he didn't intend to flee (officially). You can blame that the court should have refused, but he still commits a crime because he was not allowed to flee. He evily manipulated his lawyers, and the justice. Call that Merit.
So, no I am not joking.
It's because they have no copyright on the girl :rolleyes:
Come on msn, I will give you the text in French.
Fipskuul
2009-09-29, 16:28
I will repeat as many times as I have to. What you express has no legal value.Are the judges allowed to give different decisions on the same case?
He pled guildty and asked the right to finish his last work, and I guess, promised to come back. That means his lawyers were also perfectly aware that he didn't intend to flee (officially). You can blame that the court should have refused, but he still commits a crime because he was not allowed to flee. He evily manipulated his lawyers, and the justice. Call that Merit.
So, no I am not joking.It does not matter. He was guilty. What kind of a judge would give a person known as guilty of molesting a minor (after, let's call it as evily manipulating an innocent kid and her mother) the freedom to travel abroad, making the fleeing solely a decision of the guilty side? Was that decision also based on the legal values?
I am going to ask you again. If a kid were to be molested in your close neighborhood, and if the court would have given that person the permission to travel abroad, what would you have thought? What would you have felt? Would you have considered it as what the legal values dictated and accepted it?
Are the judges allowed to give different decisions on the same case?
The justice is supposed to be neutral. There's no special treatments for famous people. And if a judge dares doing something not neutral, the case will not be closed, and he'll eventually have many problems.
So, I don't think any honest judge will take in account the opinion of Polanski's friends.
It does not matter. He was guilty. What kind of a judge would give a person known as guilty of molesting a minor (after, let's call it as evily manipulating an innocent kid and her mother) the freedom to travel abroad, making the fleeing solely a decision of the guilty side? Was that decision also based on the legal values?
I am going to ask you again. If a kid were to be molested in your close neighborhood, and if the court would have given that person the permission to travel abroad, what would you have thought? What would you have felt? Would you have considered it as what the legal values dictated and accepted it?
It does matter. It happens that the governement and the offendant's lawyers make deals.
You can say what you want, whatever if letting him travel was a bad choice, he lied and broke the deals, hence he is even more a criminal now.
I'll not reply again if you repeat again and again the same idiotic thing.
Fipskuul
2009-09-29, 16:40
The justice is supposed to be neutral. There's no special treatments for famous people. And if a judge dares doing something not neutral, the case will not be closed, and he'll eventually have many problems.
So, I don't think any honest judge will take in account the opinion of Polanski's friends.I am not talking about Polanski's friends, and I am sure many are not even a friend. There are many others involved, including the victim herself. The reason for my question was if judges can give different decisions on the same case, and if all those decisions can be accepted by the system, then that means, it is not only the legal values that play a role during the decision making process. There are other issues involved, issues that you don't mind ignoring.
I'll not reply again if you repeat again and again the same idiotic thing.You consider it as idiotic, because you have no moral answer to the question that you will be comfortable with without making your initial arguments fail. You know it would be easier to just accept the mistake of letting him travel abroad, instead of trying to defend it here over and over again.
I am not talking about Polanski's friends, and I am sure many are not even a friend. There are many others involved, including the victim herself. The reason for my question was if judges can give different decisions on the same case, and if all those decisions can be accepted by the system, then that means, it is not only the legal values that play a role during the decision making process. There are other issues involved, issues that you don't mind ignoring.
You create other issues at your will. The justice system doesn't work like that.
You consider it as idiotic, because you have no moral answer to the question that you will be comfortable with without making your initial arguments fail. You know it would be easier to just accept the mistake of letting him travel abroad, instead of trying to defend it here over and over again.
Moral? You don't judge people based on morals issue from people like you. If it was the case, when the father of a raped victim would want the rapist to be sentenced to death penalty, and if 51% of the people of the country agrees, then it means that we would have to kill the rapist.
It doesn't work like that. And beside that, whatever the voice of his community, I doubt that the majority of people from France or the USA are on Polanski's side.
And if you mean that quetsion:
If a kid were to be molested in your close neighborhood, and if the court would have given that person the permission to travel abroad, what would you have thought? What would you have felt? Would you have considered it as what the legal values dictated and accepted it?
All depends on the case that would lead the court to allow it or not. So I don't know what I am supposed to reply to you.
What I would think of the court is one thing (and without details of the case, I can't give a proper reply to your question), breaking a deal and flee is another thing that is illegal, whatever if the court allowed a person to travel or not.
He was actually allowed his visa out the country during the trial becuase the general thought was that he was only going to get probation after serving a 90 day jail sentence for a psychological evaluation(he served 42) in part with a plea deal. But then David Wells jumped into the picture. . .
In 1977, Polanski agreed to plead guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse. The presiding judge, Laurence Rittenband, was to decide Polanski's sentence after reviewing a report from the Probation Department and holding a hearing with attorneys for each side. All parties expected Polanski to get only probation.
According to a recent documentary, Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney David Wells, who was not involved in the case, intervened with Rittenband. Wells thought Polanski was being cavalier about the charges against him and should serve time for his misdeed. (Wells showed the judge photographs of Polanski partying in Munich with his arms around two young women who Wells claimed were underage.) Rittenband seemed to be convinced and suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he would send the director to prison and order him deported. At that time, Polanski fled.
While Wells was not himself an attorney of record in the case, he was a lawyer for one of the parties—the state of California. The California Code of Judicial Ethics (PDF) forbids judges to engage in ex parte communications—discussions where only one side is represented.
There is no question that Rittenband violated the ethics code. The question of whether his conversations with Wells are sufficient grounds for dismissal of the charges against Polanski is an open question. There is very little law on the subject to guide the judge who's now presiding over the case. Outright dismissal is an exceedingly rare remedy for ex parte communications, especially when the communications came after the plea agreement was reached. It's far more common for the plea agreement to stand, with a new judge brought in to preside over the sentencing. The original judge could also face sanctions. (Judge Rittenband is deceased, so there's a good chance the unethical contacts will have no impact.).
Note: Polanski's notion to dismiss the case to due prosecutorial misconduct was thrown out because he failed to appear in court, so I believe that bridge is burned. Naturally, that decision has been appealed, but I don't see how it'll be overturned if he doesn't show up.
Polanski's attorneys have sought to dismiss the case following the release of the HBO documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," which raised questions about judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The film contends Rittenband, who has since died, was improperly consulted by a prosecutor not assigned to Polanski's case about what kind of sentence the film director should receive. While Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza earlier this year found there was "substantial misconduct" in the handling of the original case, he dismissed Polanski's motion to throw out the case because the director did not appear in court. Polanski risked arrest on a fugitive warrant if he returned to Los Angeles. He has appealed Espinoza's decision, and a California appellate court is reviewing the case.
He was actually allowed his visa out the country during the trial becuase the general thought was that he was only going to get probation after serving a 90 day jail sentence for a psychological evaluation(he served 42) in part with a plea deal. But then David Wells jumped into the picture. . .
Note: Polanski's appeal to due prosecutorial misconduct was thrown out because he failed to appear in court, so I believe that bridge is burned.
- As far as I know (but correct me if I am wrong) to pronounce a sentence in California, the defendant has to be present. That's why the sentence was not proncounced.
- He fled. The question of "if his lawyers" could have used what is said in this documentary to defend Polanski, or to use it as a techinal irregularity doesn't change the fact that he fled before it. Edit: just saw your edit below the text.
- There are people who say he didn't flee (heard that today), that he never tried to avoid to face the US justice. Fact is, he avoided to travel, for example in the USA, or in England because he knew England would extradite him right away
- Why France didn't extradite him? Because there's a law in France that says we don't extradite people who have the French nationality (he has the French nationality). French justice was not able to judge him instead of the USA either, because the case was already judged in the USA.
**
Beside that, if you can, i'll ask to all the French who will read this to try to watch a video of the program "Ce soir [ou jamais !] " from today september 29 (it was on France 2), there were Lawyers and even a comedian (proof that not all the French Artists are advocating what Polanski did. So Mitterrand should really shut his dirty mouth). They talked about this case, and I will say it again, when Frederic Mitterrand said that all the French think like him, he lied. I didn't see much people defending him tonight.
Edit:
And to try to stay a bit neutral myself, Kusa san told me they talked about it too in the program (Ce soir ou jamais) from yesterday. A link is up to watch it: http://ce-soir-ou-jamais.france3.fr/?page=emission&id_rubrique=767 In this one, there are people defending him this time (including a lawyer). So watch the two programs, and make your own opinion!
(today's program will be uploaded by tomorrow, I guess)
A man without self-control, no honour and a coward at that (given that what is written about him is the truth). The correct punishment would be that he had to repeat this incident but this time as the girl (mind and body) - leaving the same scars in his psyche - unfortunately that is not possible. I guess some people simply have no idea how it hurts when they hurt others.
Cinocard
2009-09-29, 19:43
What is with the meritocracy crap? If a prisoner's sentence were lessen X years because his good labor had earned the society $10000 (even though feeding him costs lots more) and showed his good reformatory, would Bill Gate after massacring 100 people be uncharged of his sentence because he donated 50 billion dollars to charity?
Lol at all those hypocrites who defend him in the name of Justice. Law is an unjust tool used to prevent any injustice beside itself to happen.
Slice of Life
2009-09-29, 19:48
The correct punishment would be that he had to repeat this incident but this time as the girl (mind and body) - leaving the same scars in his psyche - unfortunately that is not possible.
He deserves punishment, I don't see much mitigating circumstances here, but what these eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth revenge fantasies concerns, you're about 2000 years too late for that.
Yes, sometimes even I agree with Christianity.
autobachs
2009-09-29, 23:02
He was actually allowed his visa out the country during the trial becuase the general thought was that he was only going to get probation after serving a 90 day jail sentence for a psychological evaluation(he served 42) in part with a plea deal. But then David Wells jumped into the picture. . .
In 1977, Polanski agreed to plead guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse. The presiding judge, Laurence Rittenband, was to decide Polanski's sentence after reviewing a report from the Probation Department and holding a hearing with attorneys for each side. All parties expected Polanski to get only probation.
According to a recent documentary, Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney David Wells, who was not involved in the case, intervened with Rittenband. Wells thought Polanski was being cavalier about the charges against him and should serve time for his misdeed. (Wells showed the judge photographs of Polanski partying in Munich with his arms around two young women who Wells claimed were underage.) Rittenband seemed to be convinced and suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he would send the director to prison and order him deported. At that time, Polanski fled.
While Wells was not himself an attorney of record in the case, he was a lawyer for one of the parties—the state of California. The California Code of Judicial Ethics (PDF) forbids judges to engage in ex parte communications—discussions where only one side is represented.
There is no question that Rittenband violated the ethics code. The question of whether his conversations with Wells are sufficient grounds for dismissal of the charges against Polanski is an open question. There is very little law on the subject to guide the judge who's now presiding over the case. Outright dismissal is an exceedingly rare remedy for ex parte communications, especially when the communications came after the plea agreement was reached. It's far more common for the plea agreement to stand, with a new judge brought in to preside over the sentencing. The original judge could also face sanctions. (Judge Rittenband is deceased, so there's a good chance the unethical contacts will have no impact.).
Note: Polanski's notion to dismiss the case to due prosecutorial misconduct was thrown out because he failed to appear in court, so I believe that bridge is burned. Naturally, that decision has been appealed, but I don't see how it'll be overturned if he doesn't show up.
Polanski's attorneys have sought to dismiss the case following the release of the HBO documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," which raised questions about judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The film contends Rittenband, who has since died, was improperly consulted by a prosecutor not assigned to Polanski's case about what kind of sentence the film director should receive. While Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza earlier this year found there was "substantial misconduct" in the handling of the original case, he dismissed Polanski's motion to throw out the case because the director did not appear in court. Polanski risked arrest on a fugitive warrant if he returned to Los Angeles. He has appealed Espinoza's decision, and a California appellate court is reviewing the case.
You're an enabler, Dilla.
The talk of a meritocracy determining the punishment for a crime does not conform to the ideal of justice being blind. Who or what determines someone being merited for punishment? Down this road are favoritism, cronyism, blackmail and bribery, IMHO.
For the victim, Samantha Geimer, I can see why she would speak out for Roman Polanski. There is the "forgiveness" factor, which was mentioned in a recent news update (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090929/ap_en_ot/eu_switzerland_polanski), and then she could well want to move on with the rest of her life instead of having her story dragged on in the news/tabloids and possibly damaging her family more.
Questions: Would people like Frederic Mitterand feel differently if a lesser known man committed the crime on French soil? Even if the criminal is not a French citizen or perhaps a naturalized one from elsewhere? Would things also be different if the case was one where the crime was never solved, and when the statute of limitation ran out, the criminal then spoke up?
There is virtually no chance - unless the Swiss can guarantee that Polanski will not flee - of Roman Polanski being allowed out before the extradition hearing. He had already shown himself to be a flight risk by (1) having fleeing the U.S. before sentencing on the rumor of additional jail time and (2) not going to countries, since then, that would have extradited him to the U.S. The fact that he's now 77 years old is meaningless if the quality and conditions of his stay are good.
I do wonder, though, why Roman Polanski does not want this ordeal over. Speaking of his career alone, the man accomplished a lot in the film industry. Does he want this to continue to hurt his legacy? "Oh, yeah. Roman Polanski! A great film maker, but a pedophile and rapist who also committed sodomy on his 13 years old victim , right?"
The man is 77 years old. Few, if any, judges, despite his crime, would want to send him to a hard-core prison where rapists and child molesters are not well liked. Esp. with the then victim now speaking out for Polanski, the chances of his getting any jail time are, IMHO, fairly low; home stay and/or community service is more likely, and then afterwards, he's free and no longer have to worry. If he's fighting this hard now after many years having passed, just exactly how guilty does he really feel?
He deserves punishment, I don't see much mitigating circumstances here, but what these eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth revenge fantasies concerns, you're about 2000 years too late for that.
Yes, sometimes even I agree with Christianity.
Well in all honesty, I am generally not for an eye for an eye approach. For example I don't think the death punishment to be of any use. But I think some people lack the understanding for how others feel or they lack the abilty to put oneself in someone's place. But I guess if they actually experienced what they do to others themselves, then they can realize how it is to be treated like that.
Well in all honesty, I am generally not for an eye for an eye approach. For example I don't think the death punishment to be of any use. But I think some people lack the understanding for how others feel or they lack the abilty to put oneself in someone's place. But I guess if they actually experienced what they do to others themselves, then they can realize how it is to be treated like that.
The discipline on self must be strong enough to overcome desires. If failed, then you can only blame yourself. Atonement will not be achieved by running around, one must achieve greater discipline---and I believe that the prison cell (no death penalty) would be the suitable place for that kind of heavy reflection on heavy crime.
MeoTwister5
2009-09-30, 04:33
The discipline on self must be strong enough to overcome desires. If failed, then you can only blame yourself. Atonement will not be achieved by running around, one must achieve greater discipline---and I believe that the prison cell (no death penalty) would be the suitable place for that kind of heavy reflection on heavy crime.
Yet there are those, for one reason or another, seem completely incapable of remorse, atonement or even empathy.
Yet there are those, for one reason or another, seem completely incapable of remorse, atonement or even empathy.
I can only conceive that as an abnormality---resulting from *negative history* or an inhumanity(mental illness).
You can actually wonder if the first trial was really fair. As Cooley (LA County District Attorney) said it:
There's high chance that Polanski:
- Offered money to his victim (he actually did during the deal, but no one knows how much he offered to the victim's parents).
Do you believe that there's a higher chance of the victim: paid as oppose to the victim "wanting to 'forget' things"?
Do you believe that there's a higher chance of the victim: paid as oppose to the victim "wanting to 'forget' things"?
I can't tell. I don't know. I read many articles this morning, and apparently, from what i understood, his victim didn't want to stop this trial because she was defending polanski, but because she doesn't want to appear in the tabloid again. But whatever the victim is saying, it's the United states of america Versus Polanski.
Beside that, and from what I read, I only know that when Polanski and the prosecution made that lenient deal, samantha's parents recieved compensation from Polanski. How much? I don't know.
SeijiSensei
2009-09-30, 07:20
The man is 77 years old. Few, if any, judges, despite his crime, would want to send him to a hard-core prison where rapists and child molesters are not well liked.
I wouldn't be so sure of that, Lynnie. First, his crimes now include not only the act itself but his flight from prosecution. Some judges might view that as the more serious offense, since it was a slap in the face to the LA justice system.
Second, attitudes toward pedophilia have if anything hardened (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614) since Polanski went to trial. There will be a lot of public pressure to throw the book at Polanski if he's extradited, pressures that easily be exploited by politicians hoping to gain support among the "think of the children" crowd.
I repost my previous message, after that my parents asked me to remove many parts of it to avoid "possible" problems.
-
Questions: Would people like Frederic Mitterand feel differently if a lesser known man committed the crime on French soil? Even if the criminal is not a French citizen or perhaps a naturalized one from elsewhere? Would things also be different if the case was one where the crime was never solved, and when the statute of limitation ran out, the criminal then spoke up?
You can actually wonder if the first trial was really fair. As Cooley (LA County District Attorney) said it:
"He received a very, very, very lenient sentence back then which would never be achievable under today's laws."
There's high chance that Polanski:
- Gave compensation to his victim (he actually did during the deal, but no one knows how much he offered to the victim's parents)
- That the trial was unfair to the victim till the judge thought about overturning it (that's when Polanski fled, duh).
Anyway............. another proof that the politicians, and many actors and directors think they are the center of the world, the voice of everyone, while tyhe public opinion is a complete opposite:
It actually is turning that MOST people from Poland are AGAINST Polanski! Yes, that's right, his own people from Poland are just disgusted and want justice too. Now the politicians in Poland try to shut up since a survey revealed that the big majority of people in Poland want Polanski to be extradited (and judged) for his crime
I suggest you to read this news, Polish People are NOT on Polanski side. It's very interesting. I bolded the important parts:
http://a.abcnews.com/m/screen?id=8701191&pid=76
Roman Polanski's tarnished image may never recover in his homeland, Poland.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk today brushed aside any notion that Poles should be fixated over Roman Polanki's arrest.
"I don't think this national uproar is appropriate," he told reporters. "This is a moral and legal matter and not one of national or political consequence."
Polanski's arrest on charges that he fled the U.S. more than 30 years ago to avoid sentencing on a child rape charge has energized Polish public opinion to such a degree that even the Prime Minister felt it necessary to calm emotions. And, crucially, to distance himself from the case. In contrast to Tusk, many ministers in his cabinet view Polanski as a source of national pride -- and standing up for him as a matter of national prestige.
Polanski's popularity in Poland has always been huge. His rare theatrical performances sell out months in advance. He speaks to packed audience halls and his early films are treated as icons of contemporary Polish culture. In a country where film schools and the art of movie making have traditionally enjoyed a unique status, Polanski, a Lodz Film School alumnus, is simply revered.
No wonder that his arrest made such an impact. Polish newspapers, TV and news Web sites are brimming with the Polanski case. And it is not just the average reader and viewer who are interested. His arrest has literally hit the Polish political scene.
During his couple of days in Swiss custody, Polanski has managed to pitch political parties against one another and to spark a national debate on morality and art.
Polish political life is being dominated by Polanski's case. Some are asking if the government is doing enough to defend him. Others argue that the state should not squander its authority by sympathizing with a pedophile.
Everyone feels obligated to take a stand. President Lech Kaczynski got his lawyers involved and said, "Polanski is morally wrong. But much time has passed…"
Ex-president and Solidarity leader Lech Walesa came out in Polanski's defense saying that, "He'd already repented for the sins of his youth."
The highly respected Association of Polish Film Makers issued an open letter. Its signatories appealed to the Polish president and government to take "energetic steps to free Polish citizen Roman Polanski and to prevent his extradition to the USA."
"Although the events from thirty years ago were morally wrong, Polanski's departure from the USA was an escape from a court lynch. There were solid reasons to believe that Roman Polanski would not be given a fair trial," the letter continued.
Poland Has Europe's Harshest Law Against Pedophilia
As emotions run high, some reactions verged on the bizarre. Film director Borys Lankosz, whose new film will be in the running for the Oscars, fumed against the Swiss. In a TVN24 interview he insinuated that the Swiss were prostitutes "who agreed to set up a trap by inviting Polanski and then caught him...Switzerland is not a place to visit, not in a long time," said Lankosz.
The big irony is that the often uncritical and unconditional involvement in Polanski's case is happening against the backdrop of a new Polish law against pedophilia. Polish elites who defend Polanski so vehemently seem to forget that only last week (Sept. 24), the Polish Parliament passed Europe's harshest law against pedophilia.
Parliament amended the penal code and made it legal to subject convicted pedophiles to pharmaceutical treatment. Some consider this legislature highly controversial and dubbed it "chemical castration." However, legislators who passed the amendment argue that such treatment will stop pedophiles committing crimes against the under aged.
In the context of this recent legislature, Polish authorities now understand they need to be careful in their words and actions defending Polanski. Otherwise they will no doubt be accused of hypocrisy.
Only yesterday, there were some in the government who called on the foreign minister to get President Obama involved. Today, they have toned down their language considerably and the outrage is more controlled.
According to Bogdan Zdrojewski, Poland's minister of culture, the reaction is "reserved, calm and up to the point." A spokesperson for the Polish Foreign Ministry told ABC News that "The Polish Ambassador met with Polanski for two hours and we are providing him with all the assistance he needs. We are taking all the steps we feel necessary to secure Mr. Polanski's fair treatment."
Polish, French Foreign Ministers Appeal to Hillary Clinton
One of these steps is an appeal letter to Hillary Clinton. Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski and his French counterpart Bernard Kouchner are sending it jointly (Polanski holds dual citizenship – Polish and French). The main reason the authorities have now started to take a low-key approach is their electorate. An opinion poll published today shows that less than 25 percent of Poles would like to see Polanski escape another trial. "This is a very surprising result," says Jan Stolarz, a sociologist with a polling organization.
He told ABC News that "in light of the near-hero status Polanski enjoys here, this is very telling. People no longer believe that achievement can buy you immunity and that all are equal before the law...This is very encouraging," adds Stolarz.
Results of the opinion poll are reflected by many Web site comments. Most readers would like to see Polanski extradited to the U.S.
"I'm ashamed that my president and a few ministers are protecting a pedophile," reads one. "Law is law and money cannot buy you justice. Polanski, Obama or Mr. Jones -- in a lawful state all are equal."
To many Poles, Polanski had been an iconic figure. Events from 30 years ago, his past, were just an ambiguous blur, certainly nothing that could overcast his greatness.
Today, there seems to be a change. With Polish public reaction so vocal and negative, with the past once again revealed, Polanski's tarnished image may never recover in his homeland. Only a handful of politicians and fellow artists appear to be dedicated to saving the icon.
Now about France. I am waiting for a national survey, but at least right now, you will find very few web survey that defend Polanski. French public opinion is the same as Poland, Polanski needs to pay, and he actually got an lenient sentence at his first trial.
There are also french artists who don't defend Polanski, for example, the internationaly famous director Luc Besson who wants the justice to be the same for everyone, whether your rich or poor: http://www.liberation.fr/culture/0101594034-luc-besson-la-justice-doit-etre-la-meme-pour-tour-le-monde
You can actually wonder if the first trial was really fair. As Cooley (LA County District Attorney) said it:
There's high chance that Polanski:
- Gave compensation to his victim (he actually did during the deal, but no one knows how much he offered to the victim's parents)
- That the trial was unfair to the victim till the judge thought about overturning it (that's when Polanski fled, duh). It's likely to be very hard, at this point in time and esp. with the judge then now passed away, to know what was going through the judge's mind.
(Although if people have copies of his working papers on-line that lists why he was planning to add more jail time, that would be very helpful. :))
As for the chemical castration change in Polish law, yes, I went back yesterday to edit my original post when I read the news article. ;)
I wouldn't be so sure of that, Lynnie. First, his crimes now include not only the act itself but his flight from prosecution. Some judges might view that as the more serious offense, since it was a slap in the face to the LA justice system.
Second, attitudes toward pedophilia have if anything hardened (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614) since Polanski went to trial. There will be a lot of public pressure to throw the book at Polanski if he's extradited, pressures that easily be exploited by politicians hoping to gain support among the "think of the children" crowd. I got to politely disagree with you. :) Unless there is a "Three Strikes" law, his age should generate some leniency in sentencing at this point. From what I understand - since I haven't been in jail ever :) - neither rapists or pedophiles are well-liked in prison, and aren't treated well there. While attitudes have hardened against such crimes since then, I think that many people who aren't strict justice thumpers would disagree with a lessened actual sentence imposed - that is, the judge throws the book at the man, but then lessens the sentence due to his age.
Eisdrache
2009-09-30, 10:37
and to heck with Swiss neutrality
UBS AG giving 4,450 Names to U.S. gov sets bad precedent
Excuse me sir, but as a swiss person I have to ask you what the hell has giving out names of people who are guilty of tax fraud have to do with neutrality?
I really don't understand the need to punish him after 30 years, considering that the child molested by Polanski got over it long time ago, and he had already suffered the consequences and got acquitted at the end in the eyes of the community he belongs to, and a non-negligible portion of the society. Yes, his troubled past might have a lot to do with this, and also his actions afterwards telling that it was a single bad mistake not an incident of repetitive nature.
I also didn't understand, if those really happened at the time, why he was given the freedom to flee the country. To me it is a bit late to search for justice, even though it may look as the right thing to do. I think people need to hear what the victim says about this case.
For your second point, I do agree that he shouldnt have had the right to travel around. But your first point is utterly ridiculous.
People really need to understand that it does not matter how much time has passed between the incident and the arrest. Having sex with minors does not fall under the statute of limitation in the USA so any argument with "30 years later is too late" has no merit at all. Just because 30 years have passed and the victim has forgiven him does ABSOLUTELY NOT mean that Polanski should not be judged. And by judged I mean the usual punishment of 50 years in jail in the USA.
The same goes for the argument that "it was only a one time mistake and he has proven not to be a repetual offender" thing. So what? By saying this you just have accepted that any criminal, no matter how serious the crime, should not be punished if he doesnt do it a second time. Why do we have have laws then? Roman Polanski does not stand above the law and has to be judged like every other criminal as well.
It does not matter if he had a sad past. It does not matter if he is a famous director. It does not matter if the victim has forgiven him. Arresting Polanski was the only correct thing the police could have done.
Kusa-San
2009-09-30, 11:04
Here for those who want to know who are these stupid artist who defend a rapist :
http://www.sacd.fr/Le-cinema-soutient-Roman-Polanski-Petition-for-Roman-Polanski.1340.0.html
These artist who tell us "No you can't download for free, it's illegal !! It's baaaaaad :mad:" tell us here that we need to protect a rapist ?!!! :eek:
Personnaly, I will boycott every products of these stupid peoples :mad:
Excuse me sir, but as a swiss person I have to ask you what the hell has giving out names of people who are guilty of tax fraud have to do with neutrality?
It takes Washington to finally pry you open
Your country is doing a favor for Washington that they wouldn't do for another.
Fipskuul
2009-09-30, 12:27
You create other issues at your will. The justice system doesn't work like that.The justice system "can" be affected by that. There is nothing wrong with it.
Moral? You don't judge people based on morals issue from people like you. If it was the case, when the father of a raped victim would want the rapist to be sentenced to death penalty, and if 51% of the people of the country agrees, then it means that we would have to kill the rapist.No. What I suggested can be thought like this: if the laws allow for the death penalty, and there is a public request of that, it can happen. It doesn't have to, but there is the possibility of it happening. And if it happens, it may be considered as partly due to what the public demanded. After all the people who make the decisions are part of the same public, with their approvals and disapprovals.
It doesn't work like that. And beside that, whatever the voice of his community, I doubt that the majority of people from France or the USA are on Polanski's side.That may be true for US. But, for France, considering their strange values compared to even the other European countries, I cannot say the same.
For your second point, I do agree that he shouldnt have had the right to travel around. But your first point is utterly ridiculous.
People really need to understand that it does not matter how much time has passed between the incident and the arrest. Having sex with minors does not fall under the statute of limitation in the USA so any argument with "30 years later is too late" has no merit at all. Just because 30 years have passed and the victim has forgiven him does ABSOLUTELY NOT mean that Polanski should not be judged. And by judged I mean the usual punishment of 50 years in jail in the USA.After everything is done, after even the victim has reached the state of forgiving her molester, what you are trying to do may not do any good from the victim's perspective. The justice you seek is not for you or for me, it is mainly for the victim herself. It is too late. US, the country that set up *exciting* camps all over the world, could have captured Polanski long time ago, and brought him to justice when it mattered. It was not like Polanski was hiding in a location that US could not find. And it is not even fair to say that US completely follows the international laws.
The same goes for the argument that "it was only a one time mistake and he has proven not to be a repetual offender" thing. So what? By saying this you just have accepted that any criminal, no matter how serious the crime, should not be punished if he doesnt do it a second time. Why do we have have laws then? Roman Polanski does not stand above the law and has to be judged like every other criminal as well.I suggest you to try to explain this to the victim too. Because, that is one of the reasons why she had forgiven Polanski. Believe me, if he had done that to one another girl elsewhere, we would have never heard about any kind of forgiveness from her. And, justice system, if I am not mistaken, takes this kind of things into account when punishing criminals.
It does not matter if he had a sad past. It does not matter if he is a famous director. It does not matter if the victim has forgiven him. Arresting Polanski was the only correct thing the police could have done.I believe psychological evaluations are used in the courts. A person's past matters in his actions.
Kusa-San
2009-09-30, 12:39
That may be true for US. But, for France, considering their strange values compared to even the other European countries, I cannot say the same.
Don't talk for us please :rolleyes: The truth is that a majority of french citizen are not on Polanski's side.
After everything is done, after even the victim has reached the state of forgiving her molester, what you are trying to do may not do any good from the victim's perspective. The justice you seek is not for you or for me, it is mainly for the victim herself. It is too late. US, the country that set up *exciting* camps all over the world, could have captured Polanski long time ago, and brought him to justice when it mattered. It was not like Polanski was hiding in a location that US could not find. And it is not even fair to say that US completely follows the international laws.
No the justice is not only for the victim but for the society. There is no exception because in society everyone are under the same laws. Polanskil will be judge and go to jail.
Fipskuul
2009-09-30, 12:55
Don't talk for us please :rolleyes: The truth is that a majority of french citizen are not on Polanski's side. Interesting. Can you please direct me to links offering polling results to justify that?
And about the talking, sorry cannot do that, not when your country and your countrymen talk about other people and other countries as they please.
No the justice is not only for the victim but for the society. There is no exception because in society everyone are under the same laws. Polanskil will be judge and go to jail.Unfortunately exceptions do happen, since the justice system (probably everywhere) is not a completely fair or a perfect system.
Kusa-San
2009-09-30, 13:03
Interesting. Can you please direct me to links offering polling results to justify that?
And about the talking, sorry cannot do that, not when your country and your countrymen talk about other people and other countries as they please.
Here :
http://blog.lefigaro.fr/le-fol/2009/09/affaire-polanski-dits-et-non-dits.html
and
L'affaire Polanski révèle une nouvelle fracture entre l'opinion et les élites. Alors que le monde du cinéma s'insurge dans une pétition internationale contre son arrestation, jugée "absolument épouvantable" par le ministre de la culture, Frédéric Mitterrand, tous les sondages réalisés depuis dimanche montrent que l'opinion est largement favorable à ce que Polanski soit extradé aux Etats-Unis pour y être jugé. C'est le cas de 70,7% des internautes ayant répondu à la question hier sur lefigaro.fr sur un total de 29 500 votants. Or, les internautes ne passent pas pour d'odieux réactionnaires.
Now please show me a proof which states the contrary ? :)
Oh and don't worry about your last comment, it's the same for every other country :)
Unfortunately exceptions do happen, since the justice system (probably everywhere) is not a completely fair or a perfect system.
And because of that Polanski shouldn't be judge ?
There's way too much generalizing going on in this thread. I suggest people relax a little bit and take a step back.
Fipskuul
2009-09-30, 13:42
Here :
http://blog.lefigaro.fr/le-fol/2009/09/affaire-polanski-dits-et-non-dits.html
Let's just say that I am surprised.
And because of that Polanski shouldn't be judge ?Even if he is judged, justice may not be served.
No the justice is not only for the victim but for the society. There is no exception because in society everyone are under the same laws. Polanskil will be judge and go to jail.
If societies were all under the same law, people like Paris Hilton wouldn't have the sham of a jail sentence she served, Nixon wouldn't have received a presidental pardon, and Bush and Cheney would be under investigation for war crimes/treason.
Money and power *do* influence much of what people can get away with. The laws are on the paper yes, and those laws don't say "here's the exception", but society has to enforce those laws, or they're just words on paper.
The US has had decades of opportunities to extradite Polanski and charge him, why they chose to act now is anyone's guess. One thing to keep in mind is that in 30 years, sex laws have become incredibly strict in the US (to the point of sheer absurdity in most cases), largely in part to our extreme conservatism and hypocrisy regarding sexuality. It's possible that the prosecutors revisited this case to score another notch on their belt, and they're backed by officials eager to point out the "horrible sex criminal" who justifies their reasons for the tougher laws.
Now that doesn't mean I find Polanski innocent. However, he was forgiven by the victim and he is very old. What sentence could he possibly be given at this point that would hold any meaning?
People who wish for eye for an eye justice just end up going blind.
Kusa-San
2009-09-30, 14:01
If societies were all under the same law, people like Paris Hilton wouldn't have the sham of a jail sentence she served, Nixon wouldn't have received a presidental pardon, and Bush and Cheney would be under investigation for war crimes/treason.
Money and power *do* influence much of what people can get away with. The laws are on the paper yes, and those laws don't say "here's the exception", but society has to enforce those laws, or they're just words on paper.
I know all of that and I'm the first one to say that I find it disgusting that there is two form of justice in this world "Une justice à deux vitesse" as we say in France.
The US has had decades of opportunities to extradite Polanski and charge him, why they chose to act now is anyone's guess. One thing to keep in mind is that in 30 years, sex laws have become incredibly strict in the US (to the point of sheer absurdity in most cases), largely in part to our extreme conservatism and hypocrisy regarding sexuality. It's possible that the prosecutors revisited this case to score another notch on their belt, and they're backed by officials eager to point out the "horrible sex criminal" who justifies their reasons for the tougher laws.
It dosen't change the fact that Polanski has committed a crime and must be judged for what he has done.
Now that doesn't mean I find Polanski innocent. However, he was forgiven by the victim and he is very old. What sentence could he possibly be given at this point that would hold any meaning?
A sentence will have meaning because it will show us that Polansky is not above the law. So there is an important menaing behind the sentence.
And I'm sure he will make a great movie about his life in Jail : "Polanski, my life in jail" His last movie which will receive many Oscar :)
If societies were all under the same law, people like Paris Hilton wouldn't have the sham of a jail sentence she served, Nixon wouldn't have received a presidental pardon, and Bush and Cheney would be under investigation for war crimes/treason.
Money and power *do* influence much of what people can get away with. The laws are on the paper yes, and those laws don't say "here's the exception", but society has to enforce those laws, or they're just words on paper.
As I said, the point was that if it happens, it shall not be considered as normal.
As for Polanski and his community which include many French stars, given the recent surveys, there's no way most common non-star French people would see it as justified if Polanski's friends play a role if he's not extradited.
Now while what you say is true, I don't think it's normal to see some people hoping for such decision that disregards the law texts, just to "save" Polanski, as if he was different than you and me.
The US has had decades of opportunities to extradite Polanski and charge him
While he was in France (so most of his time since 1978), it was not Possible. I explained why in a previous post.
About the time he spent in switzerland, while during the recent years Polanski said to have gone there a lot, Cooley (LA County District Attorney) said that he tried to arrest him. Now it could be said that he didn't try enough. But prove it.
The justice never forgot about him. Correct me if I am wrong, but in the state of california, to avoid a possible prescription, the justice has to issue an international warrant of arrest every X years. The last one in polanski's case was in 2005.
Now that doesn't mean I find Polanski innocent. However, he was forgiven by the victim and he is very old. What sentence could he possibly be given at this point that would hold any meaning?
Because in the USA, from what I know, it doesn't work like that? It's not a case of Samantha against Polanski, it's a case of The USA against Polanski. That the victim forgives him doens't change the fact that he broke the laws two times. His sexual intercourse with a minor (there's no consent at 13yo, even if the girl wants to have sex, which was not even the case), and when he fled. Now correct me if i am wrong.
Should be judged. It's a matter of principle and especially now that the case has gotten attention, letting him go would give the idea that people can just run away from judgement.
Surely courts don't ignore a case just because it's too much of a hassle for them, or because the victim has gotten over it? Might as well forgive murder too then, as long as no one grieves for the dead person anymore?
Slick_rick
2009-09-30, 14:11
If societies were all under the same law, people like Paris Hilton wouldn't have the sham of a jail sentence she served, Nixon wouldn't have received a presidental pardon, and Bush and Cheney would be under investigation for war crimes/treason.
Money and power *do* influence much of what people can get away with. The laws are on the paper yes, and those laws don't say "here's the exception", but society has to enforce those laws, or they're just words on paper.
The US has had decades of opportunities to extradite Polanski and charge him, why they chose to act now is anyone's guess. One thing to keep in mind is that in 30 years, sex laws have become incredibly strict in the US (to the point of sheer absurdity in most cases), largely in part to our extreme conservatism and hypocrisy regarding sexuality. It's possible that the prosecutors revisited this case to score another notch on their belt, and they're backed by officials eager to point out the "horrible sex criminal" who justifies their reasons for the tougher laws.
Now that doesn't mean I find Polanski innocent. However, he was forgiven by the victim and he is very old. What sentence could he possibly be given at this point that would hold any meaning?
People who wish for eye for an eye justice just end up going blind.
It's been mentioned that U.S has been looking to extradite him for a number of years but have been unable due to him staying in France to avoid it. Without the French government approval they'd have to resort to covert ops like Israel did with Nazi war criminals.
The crux of the issue here is not whether the victim forgives him or even how grievous his crime was or wasn't. If the U.S allows such a high profiles person to continue to evade its law then it makes America look bad and sets an example in which American laws are taken less seriously because you can run away to another country if you don't want to pay for your crimes committed in it. Laws are there not only to punish crimes but deter people from committing crimes.
Justice is supposed to be blind and as you point out it clearly isn't so if a few eyes need to be put out to make the world a fairer place I have not problem with that.
If societies were all under the same law, people like Paris Hilton wouldn't have the sham of a jail sentence she served, Nixon wouldn't have received a presidental pardon, and Bush and Cheney would be under investigation for war crimes/treason.
Money and power *do* influence much of what people can get away with. The laws are on the paper yes, and those laws don't say "here's the exception", but society has to enforce those laws, or they're just words on paper.
The US has had decades of opportunities to extradite Polanski and charge him, why they chose to act now is anyone's guess. One thing to keep in mind is that in 30 years, sex laws have become incredibly strict in the US (to the point of sheer absurdity in most cases), largely in part to our extreme conservatism and hypocrisy regarding sexuality. It's possible that the prosecutors revisited this case to score another notch on their belt, and they're backed by officials eager to point out the "horrible sex criminal" who justifies their reasons for the tougher laws.
Now that doesn't mean I find Polanski innocent. However, he was forgiven by the victim and he is very old. What sentence could he possibly be given at this point that would hold any meaning?
People who wish for eye for an eye justice just end up going blind.
1. Why not? There about a dozen or so attempts at extraditing him prior. They just didn't plan out is all. I know people expect the US to closely follow him and watch every move till they get a chance. But the reality is, unless they are threat. They aren't going to do that, it was simply they knew the time and place he was at and it panned out this time.
2. A crime is a crime regardless, If they allowed charges to be dropped if the victim wanted too. Then allot more murders, rapist, and so forth would be back out on the streets. Not to mention, it's very easy for a wealthy, influential person to help adjusts someones stances. Another reason why they do not prevent it with certain degrees of crime. The charges are taken out of the hands of the victim and put into the state. This isn't a lawsuit or something like that
3. Rich people are above the law, shocking. Never will change till the normal man is in control. Sorry to say, You're still voting for wealth groups of people. :heh:
It dosen't change the fact that Polanski has committed a crime and must be judged for what he has done.
A sentence will have meaning because it will show us that Polansky is not above the law. So there is an important menaing behind the sentence.
Because in the USA, from what I know, it doesn't work like that? It's not a case of Samantha against Polanski, it's a case of The USA against Polanski. That the victim forgives him doens't change the fact that he broke the laws two times. His sexual intercourse with a minor (there's no consent at 13yo, even if the girl wants to have sex, which was not even the case), and when he fled. Now correct me if i am wrong.
The crux of the issue here is not whether the victim forgives him or even how grievous his crime was or wasn't. If the U.S allows such a high profiles person to continue to evade its law then it makes America look bad and sets an example in which American laws are taken less seriously because you can run away to another country if you don't want to pay for your crimes committed in it. Laws are there not only to punish crimes but deter people from committing crimes.
2. A crime is a crime regardless, If they allowed charges to be dropped if the victim wanted too. Then allot more murders, rapist, and so forth would be back out on the streets. Not to mention, it's very easy for a wealthy, influential person to help adjusts someones stances. Another reason why they do not prevent it with certain degrees of crime. The charges are taken out of the hands of the victim and put into the state. This isn't a lawsuit or something like that
I see you all are missing the point. He's 77 years old. What exactly, can you say would be a fitting punishment for this man at this point in time? Do you send him to jail until he dies, which might be a decade, maybe two if he's in great health? What type of jail? Sending him into a general population is just begging for his premature demise. Do you give him the death penalty?
I know how the law works, thanks. I'm also aware of the *numerous* occasions where laws are changed, bent, or broken for exceptions. Remember Michael Fay? Different crime and circumstances, but that one was much more diplomatic - the US government requested leniency because they thought the punishment was too strong for the crime. Singapore only relented because the request came from the President.
Perhaps instead of spending decades insulting the French the United States could have spent it building relations that would have enabled them to extradite this man sooner (among other beneficial things between the countries of course).
Do the crime, do the time. Eye for an Eye, it's a case between the US and him, not the victim anymore. I see everyone harping on what the law is written as but not many considering the circumstances of the situation.
Consider for a moment, the article that was linked earlier by SeijiSensei. In the article is a person who will be labeled a criminal for the rest of her life for a consensual act. The fantasy of many young men became a nightmare for her as she struggles to find employment, moving constantly due to ostracism of the community. For what? How is she a sex offender for performing oral sex on someone barely over a year younger than her, with his permission? How does this one act destroy a life? Why can't she have her charges removed considering that what she was charged for is no longer considered a crime? And why don't more people fight against this stupidity?
We have rules here on the forums too. In all but a few cases, they aren't iron clad. We can and do bend them, if the circumstances require it. In some cases such examinations even cause us to revise, rewrite, or remove a rule entirely.
All I'm pointing out is that he did a crime, ruined his reputation, salvaged his career (in some circles), the victim moved on with her life, and the only people who seem to care are the US justice system, trying to save face because someone managed to evade them long enough to embarrass them. They're going to put an old man in jail, patting themselves on the back for...what? "We finally got him!" and the world will say "So? Don't you have better things to do with your time?"
Honestly...on the scale of things that make America look bad, this is hardly something of note.
For the record, the case that SeijiSensei linked and Polanski's doesn't even compare, that case was that teacher being straight up stupid and that was consensual. Polanski gave a girl who was over 30 years younger than him alcohol and even slipped and sedative in it as well. Even then, when he was raping her, she still had enough clarity to say no and he continued. Vastly different circumstances.
And I don't see how his reputation was ruined so badly that it equals punishment, he was still making hit movies after he bailed, winning highly regarded rewards three years after the rape with highly known actors clamoring to work with him. The biggest problem he experienced after 1978 was that he couldn't go to England or the US to make movies. If his reputation had been so badly ruined, he wouldn't of even been going for that Lifetime Achievement Award, no way.
Slick_rick
2009-09-30, 18:59
I see you all are missing the point. He's 77 years old. What exactly, can you say would be a fitting punishment for this man at this point in time? Do you send him to jail until he dies, which might be a decade, maybe two if he's in great health? What type of jail? Sending him into a general population is just begging for his premature demise. Do you give him the death penalty?
I know how the law works, thanks. I'm also aware of the *numerous* occasions where laws are changed, bent, or broken for exceptions. Remember Michael Fay? Different crime and circumstances, but that one was much more diplomatic - the US government requested leniency because they thought the punishment was too strong for the crime. Singapore only relented because the request came from the President.
Perhaps instead of spending decades insulting the French the United States could have spent it building relations that would have enabled them to extradite this man sooner (among other beneficial things between the countries of course).
Do the crime, do the time. Eye for an Eye, it's a case between the US and him, not the victim anymore. I see everyone harping on what the law is written as but not many considering the circumstances of the situation.
Circumstances? Sure he's not 77 years old but that circumstance certainly doesn't mean he should be allowed to benefit for running away from justice for a good part of his life. If you evade the law long enough till your old and gray should the law then say since you've made a fool of us for so long we'll reward you with a get out of jail free card. That makes no sense.
Consider for a moment, the article that was linked earlier by SeijiSensei. In the article is a person who will be labeled a criminal for the rest of her life for a consensual act. The fantasy of many young men became a nightmare for her as she struggles to find employment, moving constantly due to ostracism of the community. For what? How is she a sex offender for performing oral sex on someone barely over a year younger than her, with his permission? How does this one act destroy a life? Why can't she have her charges removed considering that what she was charged for is no longer considered a crime? And why don't more people fight against this stupidity?
This is a ridiculously overblown strawman argument here. Are you trying to argue that Polanski was somehow unfairly sentenced? Was his crime in anyway similar to this? Was there any ambiguity on whether it should be considered rape in your mind? Your saying the 13yr old was lying and in fact she consented and Polanski was not an much older adult but in fact close to her age? This case has nothing similar to Polanski so why even bring it up?
We have rules here on the forums too. In all but a few cases, they aren't iron clad. We can and do bend them, if the circumstances require it. In some cases such examinations even cause us to revise, rewrite, or remove a rule entirely.
All I'm pointing out is that he did a crime, ruined his reputation, salvaged his career (in some circles), the victim moved on with her life, and the only people who seem to care are the US justice system, trying to save face because someone managed to evade them long enough to embarrass them. They're going to put an old man in jail, patting themselves on the back for...what? "We finally got him!" and the world will say "So? Don't you have better things to do with your time?"
Honestly...on the scale of things that make America look bad, this is hardly something of note.
Once again you're really getting away from the issue. Bending rules, or deciding things based on circumstances are acceptable things but those things are left up to moderators or in this cases judges and juries. They'll be the ones to decide his fate whether they take it easy on him now that he 77 or take it hard on him because of the fact he ran away for so long. The U.S Justice system should care because if they don't then no one else will. It's there job to care and track down these kind of criminals. Let then the judges and juries decide what becomes of him but allowing him to run free is them not doing their jobs.
For the record, the case that SeijiSensei linked and Polanski's doesn't even compare, that case was that teacher being straight up stupid and that was consensual. Polanski gave a girl who was over 30 years younger than him alcohol and even slipped and sedative in it as well. Even then, when he was raping her, she still had enough clarity to say no and he continued. Vastly different circumstances.
It wasn't meant to be a direct comparison. See below.
Circumstances? Sure he's not 77 years old but that circumstance certainly doesn't mean he should be allowed to benefit for running away from justice for a good part of his life. If you evade the law long enough till your old and gray should the law then say since you've made a fool of us for so long we'll reward you with a get out of jail free card. That makes no sense.
I never said that he should be rewarded with a get of jail free card (technically, he's had one for 30 years....). All I said was that his age lends merit to a lenient sentence.
This is a ridiculously overblown strawman argument here. Are you trying to argue that Polanski was somehow unfairly sentenced? Was his crime in anyway similar to this? Was there any ambiguity on whether it should be considered rape in your mind? Your saying the 13yr old was lying and in fact she consented and Polanski was not an much older adult but in fact close to her age? This case has nothing similar to Polanski so why even bring it up?
Wow...that's what you took from what I said? You and Dilla really missed the mark there. The point was that as times change, so do circumstances. At this point in time the only thing that matters to the case anymore is the piece of paper that says he broke the law. To judge him exclusively based on that misses the forest for the trees. You can argue until you are blue in the face about the letter of the law but I am not advocating that he be free of punishment, just that no punishment that he earned then can be applied now.
Yes he was caught. Yes he was extradited. All I was saying is that he's evaded for so long any punishment he receives won't carry much importance, outside of the "no one escapes the long arm of the law" type of thought.
Once again you're really getting away from the issue. Bending rules, or deciding things based on circumstances are acceptable things but those things are left up to moderators or in this cases judges and juries. They'll be the ones to decide his fate whether they take it easy on him now that he 77 or take it hard on him because of the fact he ran away for so long. The U.S Justice system should care because if they don't then no one else will. It's there job to care and track down these kind of criminals. Let then the judges and juries decide what becomes of him but allowing him to run free is them not doing their jobs.
So exactly what are we discussing then, since we don't affect his fate in the slightest?
Are we discussing the merits of the legal system of the US finally capturing what they consider a criminal, or the French government not allowing Polanski's extradition, or....?
See, I inserted an opinion into this topic because I wanted to see what exactly people were arguing about that got some so riled up. So far all I have seen is rehashed arguments of "He deserves the book" to "My view of the law is (opinion here)".
Is there anything to actually discuss or should this thread just go off topic about personal views of international legalese and politics?
Slick_rick
2009-09-30, 20:12
It wasn't meant to be a direct comparison. See below.
I never said that he should be rewarded with a get of jail free card (technically, he's had one for 30 years....). All I said was that his age lends merit to a lenient sentence.
I disagree here because the fact that he evaded them for this long doesn't really make me think that he deserves lenience. Maybe they should cancel each other out and in fact just give him on based on his crime?
Wow...that's what you took from what I said? You and Dilla really missed the mark there. The point was that as times change, so do circumstances. At this point in time the only thing that matters to the case anymore is the piece of paper that says he broke the law. To judge him exclusively based on that misses the forest for the trees. You can argue until you are blue in the face about the letter of the law but I am not advocating that he be free of punishment, just that no punishment that he earned then can be applied now.
Yes he was caught. Yes he was extradited. All I was saying is that he's evaded for so long any punishment he receives won't carry much importance, outside of the "no one escapes the long arm of the law" type of thought.
Basically you're are arguing that he be free of punishment. How can no punishment earned then not be applied constituent anything less? Are you trying to use words to confuse me? It won't work. That argument was a strawman because you were trying to somehow attack rape laws in general for no purpose others than deflect the issue away. Circumstances might change but that has no bearing here. The circumstances changed only because of the willful disregard for American laws by a convicted criminal. This circumstance must also be taken into account don't you agree?
So exactly what are we discussing then, since we don't affect his fate in the slightest?
Are we discussing the merits of the legal system of the US finally capturing what they consider a criminal, or the French government not allowing Polanski's extradition, or....?
See, I inserted an opinion into this topic because I wanted to see what exactly people were arguing about that got some so riled up. So far all I have seen is rehashed arguments of "He deserves the book" to "My view of the law is (opinion here)".
Is there anything to actually discuss or should this thread just go off topic about personal views of international legalese and politics?
Well this topic seems to be about the entire Polanski case so these issues all have bearing. Do you agree with what America is doing? Do you agree with what France did? Do you want to see him extradited?
Honestly all I've seen from you if attacks on American laws and trying to use age as a quasi-defense. Maybe America should have been nicer to France but that not really the issue now is it? Michael Fay caning was only reduced wasn't it? They didn't somehow ignore his crime now did they? He took his punishment like a man why shouldn't Polanski? Because he's old?
I disagree here because the fact that he evaded them for this long doesn't really make me think that he deserves lenience. Maybe they should cancel each other out and in fact just give him on based on his crime?
Somehow I don't think canceling out is on the minds of prosecutors at the moment. :heh: More likely they'll seek additional punishment for his time evading capture.
Basically you're are arguing that he be free of punishment. How can no punishment earned then not be applied constituent anything less? Are you trying to use words to confuse me? It won't work. That argument was a strawman because you were trying to somehow attack rape laws in general for no purpose others than deflect the issue away. Circumstances might change but that has no bearing here. The circumstances changed only because of the willful disregard for American laws by a convicted criminal. This circumstance must also be taken into account don't you agree?
Free of punishment isn't what I said. I said reduced punishment. I'm saying his listed punishment doesn't work anymore because of his age (where 10 years or life sentence could mean the same thing). Nor does adding additional punishment due to his flight.
My use of the article was to point out that even laws are flawed and do not account for circumstances, but more importantly that judgments often ignore the realities of the situation. It's shameful what this man did, but he's pretty much lived his life and she's pretty much moved on with hers. What justice is there at this point that could be taken that would be fair for anyone (the legal system, or the victim)?
The conundrum is that even recognizing that his age is an issue, how do you find a fitting sentence for a man who not only got away with rape but lived a high profile and "successful" life in spite of it? How much anguish does the victim really feel, knowing what this person got away with and how much people truly don't care what he did. Famous actors line up to be in his movies, he receives awards, and no one seems to care that he's admitted to raping a 13 year old girl.
Find me the justice that can address that injustice.
Well this topic seems to be about the entire Polanski case so these issues all have bearing. Do you agree with what America is doing? Do you agree with what France did? Do you want to see him extradited?
In this case, I agree with what America is doing. He's a fugitive from the US, he committed a crime there, he should be brought back if possible to come to terms with that.
I don't agree with what France did, but America doesn't have the best foreign relations track record.
Honestly all I've seen from you if attacks on American laws and trying to use age as a quasi-defense. Maybe America should have been nicer to France but that not really the issue now is it? Michael Fay caning was only reduced wasn't it? They didn't somehow ignore his crime now did they? He took his punishment like a man why shouldn't Polanski? Because he's old?
I attack American laws because American laws seem to have more influence in the world than they should. In the interest of protecting US interests, politicians and lobbyists labor endlessly to change foreign laws so that they match up with US laws. This is immediately evident with copyright law, but comparable in other ways - my example of Michael Fay was one of them.
In the US, punishment for graffiti doesn't come with 6 canings. Despite the American public's opinion that he serve the punishment for his crime, the US government and media outlets fought to change or reduce his sentence. The Singapore government relented at the behest of not ruining a diplomatic relationship (in short, they were pressured into going easy on him).
He took his punishment like a man alright, but I'm sure those vandals who got six instead of four canings are even bigger men. :heh:
My "quasi-defense" of age is a fair one, because it addresses something fundamental to justice. In a period where some criminals serve 150 year and double life sentences....what kind of punishment do you give this guy? Does he sit in Club Fed, well taken care of until he dies? Or do you send him to the worst prison you can think of and see how long he lasts? Do you give him the death penalty?
His original sentence was probation with psychiatric evaluation, and it was only when serving that that there was talk of jail time (which if I'm understanding correctly was only a year since it was plea bargained down to a minor charge).
Now flight from charges is something different entirely. Again, adding these two charges together (remember a year in jail back then is a far cry from sex crime laws now)....it brings to question what could be administered to him that would be any measure of justice?
This is a ridiculously open and shut case.
Did he have sex with a minor? Yes.
Did he have sex without her consent? Yes
Did he use alcohol and a sedative to infer with her judgment? Yes.
Did he flee his punishment? Yes.
There’s little dispute over this--that he is guilty.
Does the punishment have relevance today? Yes, it does--why--when laws are broken, the punishments have to applied because otherwise the integrity of our system is threatened.
Is this justice? No, the law is not justice nor is justice the law. The law is the consequences of your actions.
Why is the integrity of the law so important? It is important because the belief that they will be punished encourages people without moral codes to not infringe upon the rights of others. Ideally people follow the laws because the believe in them--but any laws show a bias and for those that don’t share your bias, you have
But other people got away with X? Yeah, that’s a shame that the law is compromised sometimes, but it isn’t relevant to this situation. There’s no circumstances, no questions of guilt, there’s nothing here but a miscarriage of the law--one that is being fixed however late.
FateAnomaly
2009-09-30, 23:30
At Solace: I don't really get your point. You are saying that he should get a reduced sentence because there is no fitting punishment for him?
SeijiSensei
2009-10-01, 00:22
I just want to clarify that my citation of the piece from the Economist was definitely not meant to suggest some comparison between the woman in Atlanta and Roman Polanski. (I don't think Solace intended that comparison either, I might add.) Rather it was a response to Lynnie's suggestion that judges might be more lenient now in sentencing a man in his late seventies than they would have been thirty years ago.
I'm afraid I don't share his more optimistic view of the legal system, especially in a state like California where many judges are elected officials. A climate of fear has engulfed parents in this country. They now imagine stalkers lurk behind every mailbox just waiting to rape little Jenny or Billy. It does no good to show them statistics that demonstrate that most abductions result from parental custody disputes, or that most childhood sexual abuse is at the hands of people the children already know, or that recidivism rates for most sex offenders are quite low. They're still convinced that Billy's face might appear one day on a milk carton or that Jenny will be brutalized by that strange man who lives down the block. Most politicians, including district attorneys and elected judges, know that advocating rational policies to deal with the very real tragedies of child abuse guarantees political suicide. Instead they pass laws that so constrain where registered offenders might live that, in Miami, they can only find shelter under a bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Tuttle_Causeway_sex_offender_colony).
That said, I hold no candle for Polanski, though I admit I don't see what great moral purpose would be served by incarcerating him for the rest of his life. I'm actually more intrigued by the decision of the Swiss to pursue this matter after ignoring earlier opportunities to detain him. I don't think it's an accident that their U-turn in the Polanski case happened soon after their decision to reveal the identities of certain holders of numbered accounts. I wonder if we'll ever learn what the Swiss have received in return for this sudden burst of cooperation with our Department of Justice.
While I don't personally forgive Polanski for what he's done, I'm inclined to agree with Solace on this issue. For starters, the man is near the end of his life. Given the benefit of the doubt about his health, lets say he lives to be 100. That's only another 23 years on this earth before he's gone forever. Coupled with that, he's officially a sex offender. From what I understand about prison, sex offenders are generally weeded out of the population post-haste, as even criminals find them despicable. All that being what it is, to rehash Solace's question, how do you adequately sentence the man?
While I don't think anyone will argue that he should not be punished in some form (though maybe some of you out there will), any sentence that lands him in any sort of jail, is bound to lead to his demise. Do you just give him the death penalty then? Or do you throw him in jail and wait to see what happens?
If the aim of the justice system is to keep him alive and kicking for as much of his sentence as possible, what then is the next course of action. I would not hesitate to guess that a sentence resembling house arrest would cause quite an uproar among the community, and I would be inclined to agree with that.
There seems to be an impasse as to what an appropriate sentence for Polanski should ultimately be. Sending him to jail seems as though it would result in his death, so any punishment that may include jail time might as well include the death penalty anyway. And yet, something like house arrest or probation, does not seem fitting enough a punishment for the heinous crime he has committed.
And of course, as some have already stated, money holds tremendous influence over the justice system. Lets not forget that we're dealing with one wealthy individual here. While I don't find it fair or just that people should be able to use their wealth to influence law, that's the reality of it. And, perhaps, if the country can suck a few million dollars out of Polanski (or perhaps more, as much as they can really), might that not be the best possible outcome. Sure, people will cheer loud and long for a harsh sentence that seems fitting of the crime, but what exactly has been achieved in that case? We put an old man in jail where, if he's not killed by the other inmates, he's going to die anyway; well done. Instead of syphoning some money out of the mans pockets, we've effectively put money into them by forcing the state where he is imprisoned to pay to keep him alive for however many years to come.
MeoTwister5
2009-10-01, 02:07
I'm going to agree with Solace and Quzor on this, and likewise add my own: the punishment has to fit the nature of the crime and the nature of the criminal. All in all the purpose of punishment is supposed to have an effect on three things:
1. The Victim - Ideally gives the victim a sense of closure and satisfaction over the outcome.
2. The Criminal - Should put him in a position to make him question his actions, belief and goals etc.
3. The Society - Would ideally make society rethink the nature of the crime as well as deter future crimes of the sort.
I think the problem is that many people are content with just locking up every criminal and throwing away the key without thinking of how the punishment affects everyone. Suffice to say that that a generalized penal solution is supposed to apply in all cases, but there's enough evidence to show that simply applying the same punishment conditions to every person isn't effective. Punishing everyone the same way doesn't really change the entire concept of crime and crime deterrence. Again, he should be punished, all criminals should be punished. However, the punishment should be in such a way that it causes a desired effect and not simply applying a general condition.
Locking up an octogenerian for life isn't going to do shit for someone who's already nearing his expiration date. Likewise, locking up a sex offender in a prison full of other sex offenders and leaving them there is likely to cause their already misaligned morals to degenerate even more. This isn't "special treatment", it's trying to figure out the best way to have the best desired effect on everyone. A mere hand of vengeance in criminal prosecution and punishment isn't going to change anything.
FateAnomaly
2009-10-01, 02:57
Too idealistic.
If say i am going to die of terminal illness in a few years, i should be free to commit any crimes to my heart's desire? If i am absolutely evil and feel no guilt no matter how many years of imprisonment, i should be set free because there's is no point anyway?
Too idealistic.
If say i am going to die of terminal illness in a few years, i should be free to commit any crimes to my heart's desire? If i am absolutely evil and feel no guilt no matter how many years of imprisonment, i should be set free because there's is no point anyway?
There's a reason why lady justice is blind. You are convicted, you serve time. No matter how old you are or how frail your health is.
Too idealistic.
If say i am going to die of terminal illness in a few years, i should be free to commit any crimes to my heart's desire? If i am absolutely evil and feel no guilt no matter how many years of imprisonment, i should be set free because there's is no point anyway?
To me, this is drastically over-simplifying the issue. No one ever said he should be able to get off scot-free. There are, obviously, other factors that go into the decision of what punishment would best fit this situation, just as there would be for the situation you postulated.
As a for instance; in your example, how old are you? What terminal disease do you have? Is there medical treatment for it? How progressed in the disease are you? What crime have you committed? Are there any extraneous factors about the committed crime we should know, or would have bearing on the situation?
You can't just throw together a random set of circumstances and say "Hey, this is similar, and obviously bogus, so you guys are stupid." There's far more at play here than just some old guy who committed crimes, but should be let go simply because he's on his way out.
Eisdrache
2009-10-01, 03:25
Before anything, MeoTwister5 I love your signature <3
Uh, Im not sure if I really understand some people here. Yes I can see that Polanski is old and if he is put into jail it will most probably result in his death several years later.
This may now sound heartless ... but so what? After running away from punishment for over 30 years you really expect the judge to reduce his judgement? He lived his life the way he wanted for 30 years in France which is already a slap in the face of every citizen who did not break the law.
Given the benefit of the doubt about his health, lets say he lives to be 100. That's only another 23 years on this earth before he's gone forever.
It is not the fault of justice that now that Polanski dodged jail over several decades that he is now near his "expiration date." Basically you are saying that someone who ran away from his sentence should now even be rewarded for his actions with a reduced punishment or not even going into jail. I cant see the logic behind this train of thought and to be honest I also dont really want to.
I'm actually more intrigued by the decision of the Swiss to pursue this matter after ignoring earlier opportunities to detain him. I don't think it's an accident that their U-turn in the Polanski case happened soon after their decision to reveal the identities of certain holders of numbered accounts. I wonder if we'll ever learn what the Swiss have received in return for this sudden burst of cooperation with our Department of Justice.
In the last few years the US officials have given out ~5 warrants for Polanski since the beginning of the case to different countries. Not once did a country follow the warrant and arrested him. Only one time was a warrant given to Switzerland and promptly leaded to the arrestation of Polanski. This is not a matter of "we are in the crossfire of criticism from the USA lets help them out this time so we can hope to get on better terms with them" but a question of international law.
It takes Washington to finally pry you open
Your country is doing a favor for Washington that they wouldn't do for another.
Do you really believe that? That Switzerland would not arrest an international known child molester and extradict him to whatever country is looking for him? Do you seriously believe that? Do not mix up the UBS bank affair with the Polanski case please as they have no relation at all. Its just an attempt of Polanski defenders to make us look bad while we did nothing wrong.
Kusa-San
2009-10-01, 03:35
All I'm pointing out is that he did a crime, ruined his reputation, salvaged his career (in some circles), the victim moved on with her life, and the only people who seem to care are the US justice system, trying to save face because someone managed to evade them long enough to embarrass them. They're going to put an old man in jail, patting themselves on the back for...what? "We finally got him!" and the world will say "So? Don't you have better things to do with your time?"
Honestly...on the scale of things that make America look bad, this is hardly something of note.
No the whole world will say : "Good, this man is not above the law". I don't care if he is old. It's his fault to have run away and now to be old. He will now assume the consequence. That's all.
MeoTwister5
2009-10-01, 03:37
Once again no one is advocating him to be released. People are assuming again that there is a one-for-all punishment befitting the entire spectrum regardless of circumstances.
I may be out of line by saying this, but this is how I interpret those seeking the "lock him up and throw away the key, if not fry him on the chair" approach: it's a simple desire to satiate the hunger for vengeance. To me it's nothing more than revenge; vengeance on a person for the wrong that he has done.
But once vengeance is served cold, then what? The person is dead/locked up, but what does it do in the long run? It prevents the person from doing it again, obviously, but what else? Will a simple life or death sentence cause change in society? Will it cause say a change in the person, assuming he is capable of remorse and change, or maybe even change in others in similar situation? There are far too many possible effects that may come from different perceived solutions, and you would want the best. This to me is simply a "Lock him up now, let's figure everything else out later" mentality.
A simple generic punishment no matter the circumstances limits the possibilities. Remember that the term for these things is "Correction", but what exactly is corrective about simply putting someone in jail or in the chair and forgetting the person ever existed?
It is not the fault of justice that now that Polanski dodged jail over several decades that he is now near his "expiration date." Basically you are saying that someone who ran away from his sentence should now even be rewarded for his actions with a reduced punishment or not even going into jail. I cant see the logic behind this train of thought and to be honest I also dont really want to.
Okay, fine. Put him in jail. He's a child-molester and a criminal and that's where he belongs. What have you accomplished? You've successfully put a 77-year-old man into an already overcrowded prison system. You've placed him in with the general population, where sex-offenders are regarded as the lowest of the low. You've also, consequently, forced the government to shell out ~$20,000/year to keep this man in the prison. All of that excludes costs for medical expenses to keep him alive when his health begins failing. That also excludes any medical expenses that would be incurred if he were to have an "accident" during interactions with any of the other inmates. Congratulations. You've just cost our country $20,000 x *X number of years incarcerated* + *medical expenditures*.
On the other hand, they could levy a HEFTY fine against the man, and place him under psychological surveillance for the remainder of his life, as an act of probation. This would also include any probationary fines he would incur as a result of this sentence. And, of course, the best part is that all of this costs us EXACTLY NOTHING! The beauty of probation is that all of the expenses are the responsibility of the defendant. Now, instead of costing our government $20,000 a year, over the next 10 years for 1 person (remember, that's only for Polanski...keep adding another $20,000 for each person with at least 1 year jail time still left to serve), we've successfully made (presumably, and undershooting), $1,000,000 to put towards something worth while.
Forgive me for not being more calm about this issue but, again, this isn't just a case of "a criminal should be punished for the crime." We're entering the realm of looking at where the most benefit can be gained from his sentencing not, as MeoTwister5 said, using the "...hand of justice in criminal prosecution and punishment..." to smite the offender.
No the whole world will say : "Good, this man is not above the law". I don't care if he is old. It's his fault to have run away and now to be old. He will now assume the consequence. That's all.
That's very idealistic of you, especially considering how good America is at making sure that celebrities, or people of sufficient fame, are held above the law.
james0246
2009-10-01, 04:00
^Honestly, if Polanski were to go to jail, I expect they (DoJ/California DA) would pull some strings in order to place him in a Minimum Security prison. That is, if he even does go to jail (and he is not just sentenced with Time Served). And if he does, I doubt he would imprisoned for that long (people thinking he would be sentenced to a full 20 years (or whatever the maximum sentence for statutory rape is in California) are simply deluding themselves): rehabilitation matters little in a sentencing when discussing a criminal over the age of 60-70, so if you sentence such a person to 20 years, it is actually a death sentence, which I doubt any jury would agree to in Polanski's case.
In the end, I expect if Polanski is extradited and taken to the U.S. he will be senteced to time served, then be arrested for running from the law, in which he will be given 5-10 in a minimum security prison and make it out after a year (which was, more or less, probably going to be the maximum on his original sentence anyway).
That being said, I was really interested to see what Polanski would have done with Harris' The Ghost (before this attempted extridiction occured). Oh well, I hope someone else picks up the title...
Okay, fine. Put him in jail. He's a child-molester and a criminal and that's where he belongs. What have you accomplished? You've successfully put a 77-year-old man into an already overcrowded prison system. You've placed him in with the general population, where sex-offenders are regarded as the lowest of the low. You've also, consequently, forced the government to shell out ~$20,000/year to keep this man in the prison. All of that excludes costs for medical expenses to keep him alive when his health begins failing. That also excludes any medical expenses that would be incurred if he were to have an "accident" during interactions with any of the other inmates. Congratulations. You've just cost our country $20,000 x *X number of years incarcerated* + *medical expenditures*.
On the other hand, they could levy a HEFTY fine against the man, and place him under psychological surveillance for the remainder of his life, as an act of probation. This would also include any probationary fines he would incur as a result of this sentence. And, of course, the best part is that all of this costs us EXACTLY NOTHING! The beauty of probation is that all of the expenses are the responsibility of the defendant. Now, instead of costing our government $200,000 over the next 10 years for 1 person (remember, that's only for Polanski...keep adding another $200,000 for each person with at least 1 year jail time still left to serve), we've successfully made (presumably, and undershooting), $1,000,000 to put towards something worth while.
THIS!
The State of California is broke, debt up to their eyeballs. They ought to milk him dry so that California can balance it budget:heh:
Prisoners cost so much that the state release some of 'em early.
^Honestly, if Polanski were to go to jail, I expect they (DoJ/California DA) would pull some strings in order to place him in a Minimum Security prison. If he even does go to jail (and he is not just sentenced with Time Served), I doubt he would imprisoned for that long (people thinking he would be sentenced to a full 20 years (or whatever the maximum sentence for statutory rape is in California) are simply deluding themselves - rehabilitation matters little in a sentencing when discussing a criminal over the age of 60-70, so if you sentence such a person to 20 years, it is actually a death sentence, which I doubt any jury would agree to in Polanski's case).
In the end, I expect if Polanski is extradited and taken to the U.S. he will be senteced to time served, then be arrested for running from the law, in which he will be given 5-10 in a minimum security prison.
Again though, I don't see how this is of any benefit, other than "Yay, we punished the criminal!" Meo has been forthcoming in stating it, and I'm inclined to agree; punishments are designed to instigate change. Be it change from a certain pattern of behavior on a personal scale, on a social scale, or just in the realm of understanding of consequence, it's still change. What possible change can come of Polanski going to jail for this crime? Will people see that he was caught after running from the law for 30 years, and suddenly decide that running from the law is fruitless? Will they see that he received punishment for something he did 30 years ago, and decide not to commit crimes? Or will they see a rich, old man being coddled by the DoJ near the end of his life, despite what he's done in the past.
I know it sounds contradictory (especially with what I just said), but I really don't think jail is the best option here. We're already spending money to extradite him to the US. We're spending money to prosecute him. If we put him in jail, we're spending money to incarcerate him. Would it not seem like a reasonable punishment to simply keep him under surveillance, and levy a fine against him? In this instance, not only does he not get to repeat his act (which he probably won't anyway), he has the embarrassment of having officials watching his every move, and the horror and sadness that would undoubtedly accompany him having to give all of that money he made over the last 30 years, away.
THIS!
The State of California is broke, debt up to their eyeballs. They ought to milk him dry so that California can balance it budget:heh:
Prisoners cost so much that the state release some of 'em early.
I saw some interesting statistics once. Not sure how accurate they are today. I'll see if I can find them again sometime, when it's not five o'clock in the morning.
The US has more incarcerated individuals than any other country in the world. On average, the US spends nearly $50 billion per year to keep these inmates incarcerated. Approximately 1 in 100 individuals in America is in jail. Approximately 1 in 40 individuals is either in jail, on parole, on probation, or being monitored by some agency of the justice department.
If those are true (and I'm recalling from memory, so they may be a bit off), those are some pretty scary numbers.
Edit: Found some. Perhaps not the most reliable source but, eh... it's five o'clock in the morning. Incarceration Rate in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Incarceration_r ate)
Cost of Incarceration in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Cost_of_incarce ration)
james0246
2009-10-01, 04:22
^I edited my post a little. I agree that jail seems very unreasonable, but not because it is a waste of money (though it is), but because it would not serve the DA to try and get him put in prison. Specifically, even if Polanski was extradited tomorrow, had his sentence read by next Monday, and imprisoned the that evening, within a week's time a new court case would be introduced (whether civil or criminal, I am not sure, they would probably attempt to reopen the original case with new evidence), and a media circus would develop around the new case. I can just imagine Polanski's attorneys raising such a stink in the court that no one would be left standing, and all those present would find their careers more or less over.
So, a plea bargining of some sort seems like the best option available for the DA, and, like you mentioned, a hefty fine seems like the more legitimate solution to this messed up case.
In the end, I do agree that jail seems to serve no purpose in this case. Besdies a moral victory (of sorts) against the idea of rape (etc), there is no real "happy" solution to this mess.
^ Ah, apologies then. I didn't catch the edit as I was frantically searching the internet for those incarceration figures.
As for The Ghost, I'm sure someone else will pick it up, much the same way that Spielberg jumped all over A.I. after Kubrick passed. :p
FateAnomaly
2009-10-01, 04:29
So in the end it boils down to money. Money is without a doubt one the the most powerful thing in the world. In its presence even Lady justice have to open her eyes.
So in the end it boils down to money. Money is without a doubt one the the most powerful thing in the world. In its presence even Lady justice have to open her eyes.
A sad, but true statement. Hollywood is such a great example of this, and I don't think anyone here could say otherwise. Hell, we could probably just start a thread listing the names of famous people who have paid their way out of punishments, and have it at 100 pages before lunch.
So in the end it boils down to money. Money is without a doubt one the the most powerful thing in the world. In its presence even Lady justice have to open her eyes.
It's power. Money is just its material manifestation. As much as reason is its intellectual manifestation.
I see you all are missing the point. He's 77 years old. What exactly, can you say would be a fitting punishment for this man at this point in time? Do you send him to jail until he dies, which might be a decade, maybe two if he's in great health? What type of jail? Sending him into a general population is just begging for his premature demise. Do you give him the death penalty?
I know how the law works, thanks. I'm also aware of the *numerous* occasions where laws are changed, bent, or broken for exceptions. Remember Michael Fay? Different crime and circumstances, but that one was much more diplomatic - the US government requested leniency because they thought the punishment was too strong for the crime. Singapore only relented because the request came from the President.
Perhaps instead of spending decades insulting the French the United States could have spent it building relations that would have enabled them to extradite this man sooner (among other beneficial things between the countries of course).
Do the crime, do the time. Eye for an Eye, it's a case between the US and him, not the victim anymore. I see everyone harping on what the law is written as but not many considering the circumstances of the situation.
Consider for a moment, the article that was linked earlier by SeijiSensei. In the article is a person who will be labeled a criminal for the rest of her life for a consensual act. The fantasy of many young men became a nightmare for her as she struggles to find employment, moving constantly due to ostracism of the community. For what? How is she a sex offender for performing oral sex on someone barely over a year younger than her, with his permission? How does this one act destroy a life? Why can't she have her charges removed considering that what she was charged for is no longer considered a crime? And why don't more people fight against this stupidity?
We have rules here on the forums too. In all but a few cases, they aren't iron clad. We can and do bend them, if the circumstances require it. In some cases such examinations even cause us to revise, rewrite, or remove a rule entirely.
All I'm pointing out is that he did a crime, ruined his reputation, salvaged his career (in some circles), the victim moved on with her life, and the only people who seem to care are the US justice system, trying to save face because someone managed to evade them long enough to embarrass them. They're going to put an old man in jail, patting themselves on the back for...what? "We finally got him!" and the world will say "So? Don't you have better things to do with your time?"
Honestly...on the scale of things that make America look bad, this is hardly something of note.
You're missing the point of what most people are discussing around the world (at least in France).
The main point is not the sentence (so far), it's to not abandon the charges against him as if he was above the normal people and even above the "stars". Nor to give any special treatments to a fugitive (like allowing him to not be present at the trial when the sentence has to be pronounced)
As cooley said it, Polanski is trying to make his own laws, as if he had the right to choose to not be charged. But he has no right to choose to evade the US Justice, nor the righ to choose if he can be charged or not.
You're comparison is not good. What was discussed in Michael Fay's case is the punishment, not to "judge him or not" or "extradite him or not". Even "if" the sentence in Polanski's case could be not harsh (like a few people like you are suggesting), He has to be extradited, he has to be judged. He has to be present for a sentence to be pronounced (that's the US law in the california state) Like any other people. The Justice don't have to abandon the charges (that's what Polanski wants given his Lawyer. he doesn't even discuss the sentence, he just wants the charges to be dropped for his two crimes. You're defending that too?), nor to pronounce a sentence without him being present. There's no reason to make a special case about this part of the law. He can walk, he's in good health, hence he can come to the trial. Plus, there's even less reason to accept him to not be present since he is a fugitive. Even stars come to the trials for the sentences to be pronounced, you know. It would mean Polanski is even above the stars that you're talking about.
(and P.S., about France, France didn't have the right to extradite him. It would have meant to disregard the law that says that we don't extradite a person who has the French nationality (Polanski or common people, it's like that here). You then expect France to disregard its law and to our presidents to act as dictator.)
A sad, but true statement. Hollywood is such a great example of this, and I don't think anyone here could say otherwise. Hell, we could probably just start a thread listing the names of famous people who have paid their way out of punishments, and have it at 100 pages before lunch.
And then you expect lady justice to bend over for Polanski? If it's a sad statement of yours, then you would be happy if lady justice don't bend this time, right?
Eisdrache
2009-10-01, 07:55
[...]
Well I admit I can see the reasoning behind your posts. I do agree that we dont accomplish anything besides putting a child molester in jail. He also costs the state more than placing him under surveillance outside. However Im troubled with the fact that you place money over justice. The fact that you intend to treat Polanski differently than other child molesters.
If you apply this treatment to Polanski you have to do it to every single other child molester who is currently in jail. And this will cost the goverment far more than $ 200'000. Not to mention that putting someone under surveillance doesnt come cheap as well. Dont forget that not every rapist is a famous oscar director. Not all of them can pay several hundred thousand dollars fines to support the goverment.
You also mention the point that he is widely known as a rapist and we know that pedophiles usually are extremely unpopular wherever you go. This has not hindered Polanski over the last 30 years to become a famous director, winning not only an oscar but also several film prices and also living in France as well as doing holidays in Switzerland without being bothered by it at all.
A sad, but true statement. Hollywood is such a great example of this, and I don't think anyone here could say otherwise. Hell, we could probably just start a thread listing the names of famous people who have paid their way out of punishments, and have it at 100 pages before lunch.
Any contrivance on how to attune this unbalanced power problem? Maybe we should go communist, everyone more, but not en bloc, equal?
Capitalism cedes deserved power to those who work hard but it also gives undeserved power to those born with ancestral money. Communism gives non-meritorious power to those in control but it creates a more unmerited equal majority.
I think we need limited merit equality.
just pay some enterprising prisoner to shank him at the mess hall and it's all over..
MeoTwister5
2009-10-01, 08:33
just pay some enterprising prisoner to shank him at the mess hall and it's all over..
If you put him in a regular prison, that's bound to happen anyway.
And for free too!
If you put him in a regular prison, that's bound to happen anyway.
And for free too!
I heard that, in prisons, cigarettes were currency. :rolleyes:I'm thinking his transfer would only create his transition from different types of situational powers.
yezhanquan
2009-10-01, 11:16
Note that money as power was a relatively new thing. Before that, it was religion as power.
Actually, I think removing a large portion of his assets and dedicating them to improving the lot of young teens in education and rehabilitation -- probably does society more good than throwing him in jail for very long. I'll hope that the judge/jury are creative in that regard.
Legally speaking, even if the "victim" does not want to pursue charges, the state often has an interest in prosecuting cases -- otherwise mobsters would simply pay off victims or husbands would threaten abused wives, etc.
However, I wish this amount of media attention had been paid to all the teens who are having their lives ruined by usurious "underage" laws as prosecuted by witchburning prosecutors "protecting the children" (by ruining their lives).
Actually, I think removing a large portion of his assets and dedicating them to improving the lot of young teens in education and rehabilitation -- probably does society more good than throwing him in jail for very long. I'll hope that the judge/jury are creative in that regard.
Legally speaking, even if the "victim" does not want to pursue charges, the state often has an interest in prosecuting cases -- otherwise mobsters would simply pay off victims or husbands would threaten abused wives, etc.
However, I wish this amount of media attention had been paid to all the teens who are having their lives ruined by usurious "underage" laws as prosecuted by witchburning prosecutors "protecting the children" (by ruining their lives).
They should take away both his assets and freedom: Mugged and Jailed.
They should take away both his assets and freedom: Mugged and Jailed.
and the inevitability of getting shanked :uhoh:
There is nothing to say about his extradition:
-he was sentenced guilty and escaped a sentence.
-an extradition notice was issued to our police.
-our police arrested him accordingly.
-he will receive his sentence and serve it, be it 1 week or 150 years it has no importance.
...
Erm... last time I checked, in modern democracies, more than strict utilitarian concerns, we are more concerned about staying true to the values we perceive our society is based on (as changing as they may be). And disregarding HOW it is applicated, the law has to be applied to all indiscriminately.
There are a lot of similar things where on a strict utilitarian point of view we waste tons of money, some crucial, other vains or deformed. After all, as the old man said, it is the worst system, but there are no better one's.
But if you consider utility more important, and are ready to make a few compromises, either you go toward anarchy (why wasting time and resources to create and implement laws? it's such a hassle).
Or, as having and organized society has shown several benefits, there a very simple ways to cut costs:
-Why keep criminals in prison when you can sentence them to death and execute them at the end of the trial? You can even cut down the costs further if you charge his assets or relatives for it!
-Why bother with democracy? It's such a wasteful system! have you any idea of the costs of a single elections! Imagine if you have to organise and spend money for everybody to vote on everything! To vote only for El Presidente life-term is for sure much more economical, and why bother organizing an election if he's already in power or has a successor ready?
BTW, I am very happy living in a country without death penalty, where we vote on everything every two months on average, and I am proud of it's institutions.
The discipline on self must be strong enough to overcome desires. If failed, then you can only blame yourself. Atonement will not be achieved by running around, one must achieve greater discipline---and I believe that the prison cell (no death penalty) would be the suitable place for that kind of heavy reflection on heavy crime.
A normal prison is more like a training/convention centre for people to become real criminals. Many prisoners get another insight there... :rolleyes:
A normal prison is more like a training/convention centre for people to become real criminals. Many prisoners get another insight there... :rolleyes:
So people getting out immediately goes back to crime? The irony....:D
EDIT: Well they don't, but they get more "buffed" and more ready to break more laws.
james0246
2009-10-01, 16:01
A normal prison is more like a training/convention centre for people to become real criminals. Many prisoners get another insight there... :rolleyes:
It's not so much "training", as it is just the fact that the prisoners are treated harshly and offered little chance to reform, so when they emerge they just go back to the life they once had, and since that life led them to crime originally, the cycle simply repeats. Sadly enough, since the cycle is seemingly endless (not to mention that recent studies seem to show that jail does not deter would-be criminals), reform for the American justice/penal system is almost impossible.
And then you expect lady justice to bend over for Polanski? If it's a sad statement of yours, then you would be happy if lady justice don't bend this time, right? While I may or may not be happy if "lady justice don't bend this time," I fail to see how that has any relevance to the case at hand. My personal opinion about what should happen to the man is that we should try to make some good out of this already screwed up scenario, and I don't see how throwing him in jail does any good. Again, you get the people who say "Wahoo, take that criminal!" but what do you have when that's over? You've gained nothing from his incarceration, and instead cost the state perhaps a million dollars or more over the course of the rest of his life. In a sense, he continues to make money for his crime, because he has to pay nothing for his offense. Since the life he's lived, the awards he's won, and the money he's made since this incident seem to be an outrage to so many people, I fail to see how they find retribution throwing him in jail, where he loses none of that.
Well I admit I can see the reasoning behind your posts. I do agree that we dont accomplish anything besides putting a child molester in jail. He also costs the state more than placing him under surveillance outside. However Im troubled with the fact that you place money over justice. The fact that you intend to treat Polanski differently than other child molesters.
If you apply this treatment to Polanski you have to do it to every single other child molester who is currently in jail. And this will cost the goverment far more than $ 200'000. Not to mention that putting someone under surveillance doesnt come cheap as well. Dont forget that not every rapist is a famous oscar director. Not all of them can pay several hundred thousand dollars fines to support the goverment.
You also mention the point that he is widely known as a rapist and we know that pedophiles usually are extremely unpopular wherever you go. This has not hindered Polanski over the last 30 years to become a famous director, winning not only an oscar but also several film prices and also living in France as well as doing holidays in Switzerland without being bothered by it at all.I intend to treat him differently because of the circumstances. He is old, on his way out, and rich. The thing rich people fear the most is not being rich any more. I think taking his fortune from him through fines is a great way to spread the message "Hey rich people, you want to be criminals. That's fine, but you don't get to be rich anymore after that." Also, keep in mind that sometimes money and justice are one in the same thing. Traffic tickets and MIP's are just naming a few. This is simply that idea extrapolated to perhaps the grandest of scales.
On a separate note, I think his comfort is due, mostly, to his fame. People don't look at him and go, "Hey, that's Roman Polanski the rapist!" They see him and say "Hey, that's Roman Polanski, the famous movie director!" On the other hand, people may look at Bob down the street, and ignore whatever sort of work he does in favor of saying "Did you know Bob molests kids?" It's all about perception, and people know Polanski more for the movies he directed, than for this one girl he raped.
Erm... last time I checked, in modern democracies, more than strict utilitarian concerns, we are more concerned about staying true to the values we perceive our society is based on (as changing as they may be). And disregarding HOW it is applicated, the law has to be applied to all indiscriminately.So smite the criminal regardless of circumstance, that is your opinion? I fail to see how that delivers any more or less justice than my assertion that we should look for a means to create some social benefit from this situation. Your justice is delivered through your sense of "fairness", and my justice is delivered through my sense of "social ethical responsibility."
There are a lot of similar things where on a strict utilitarian point of view we waste tons of money, some crucial, other vains or deformed. After all, as the old man said, it is the worst system, but there are no better one's.I'm assuming you just misspoke here, and you meant "It's not a perfect system, but it's the best one we've got." In which case, I argue that it may not be the best system. England seems to be doing rather well from a governmental standpoint, and their a monarchy. Canada is much in the same boat. On the other hand, the United States is $9 trillion in debt, and sinking further and faster every year. If the measure of the quality of a government is how it treats it's people, then I'd have to say that America has actually one of the worst governments in the world. There's a quote out there somewhere (I can't find it at the moment), about gaining better understanding of a society by looking at it's convicts. Well, America has more of them than any other country in the world; what does that say?
But if you consider utility more important, and are ready to make a few compromises, either you go toward anarchy (why wasting time and resources to create and implement laws? it's such a hassle).
Or, as having and organized society has shown several benefits, there a very simple ways to cut costs:
-Why keep criminals in prison when you can sentence them to death and execute them at the end of the trial? You can even cut down the costs further if you charge his assets or relatives for it!
-Why bother with democracy? It's such a wasteful system! have you any idea of the costs of a single elections! Imagine if you have to organise and spend money for everybody to vote on everything! To vote only for El Presidente life-term is for sure much more economical, and why bother organizing an election if he's already in power or has a successor ready?As sarcastic as you're being, I don't think you fully realize the positive implications of a system like this. If we started executing every single person who committed a crime, I think we'd see the crime rate drop dramatically. Unfortunately, we can't do that, as it infringes directly on the basic human right of life. Since we have that issue to deal with, why not try to gain benefit in other ways. There are plenty of starving people out there, plenty of homeless people out there, and I'm sure that Polanski's fortune could fund more than a few soup kitchens and homeless shelters for a good while.
That's only one example. Hell, donate the money to a charity or organization that helps rehabilitate female victims of abuse, I don't care. I just think that there are far better ways to go about getting some justice than simply tossing him in prison.
Actually, I think removing a large portion of his assets and dedicating them to improving the lot of young teens in education and rehabilitation -- probably does society more good than throwing him in jail for very long. I'll hope that the judge/jury are creative in that regard.A shared sentiment, indeed sir.
Legally speaking, even if the "victim" does not want to pursue charges, the state often has an interest in prosecuting cases -- otherwise mobsters would simply pay off victims or husbands would threaten abused wives, etc.
However, I wish this amount of media attention had been paid to all the teens who are having their lives ruined by usurious "underage" laws as prosecuted by witchburning prosecutors "protecting the children" (by ruining their lives).I'm not sure I fully understand where you're going with this one. Is this as to the discussion of underage teens who make decisions for themselves, where people are still left facing prosecution because that teen was "underage"? If so, I'd have to agree, but it's difficult to convince people that a certain age is the appropriate time when people can begin to make decisions for themselves. Hell, in my state we've got two ages of consent; 18 and 21. The question becomes, at what age is a person of sound mind to be able to make their own decisions by fulling understanding the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, this is a universally fluxuating number, and so it seems that laws operate under a "best guess" scenario.
While I may or may not be happy if "lady justice don't bend this time," I fail to see how that has any relevance to the case at hand.
Learn to read your own posts then. You said it's sad that money/fame/etcs makes the justice bends over.
While you carefully avoid to reply to my question, you give the feeling that you expect the Justice to disregard the law texts because you think Polanski should not go to prison. But at the same time, you'll be sad because the justice did bend again? I smell a lie, sorry to be blunt.
And I don't see how what we are talking about is revelant to the "current" state of the case. As I said to Solace, we're not at the point of pronouncing a sentence yet, the US Justice can't even judge Polanski (whatever he'll get, 1 days or 150 years of prison, that's not the current problem), because Mister Polanski "decided" that the charges against him have to be dropped.
Learn to read your own posts then. You said it's sad that money/fame/etcs makes the justice bends over.
While you carefully avoid to reply to my question, you give the feeling that you expect the Justice to disregard the law texts because you think Polanski should not go to prison. But at the same time, you'll be sad because the justice did bend again? I smell a lie, sorry to be blunt.
Just because I don't think he should go to prison, does not mean I do not think he should be punished. Your statement asserts that the only means of punishment is incarceration. "I smell a lie, sorry to be blunt."
The fact that I am disgusted by the ease with which the rich and famous bend and break the rules of the justice system, does not change the fact that I think this is a special circumstance where a better result could be achieved by a slight bending of the rules. We're not talking about Lindsey Lohan getting a DUI, and paying a fine to get out of it (which, by the way, is not AT ALL how that works for non-famous people). This is a man who has already lived into the twilight of his life. If you feel like we will have achieved some justice by forcing the man to die in prison, then fine. I do not feel that way.
Don't just put together bits and pieces of what I said and call me a liar; it's all contextual. Do I think it's fair that famous people get to manipulate the justice system with money? Hell no. Do I think this particular case warrants some creative interpretation of the rules to better punish the accused? Absolutely.
Just because I don't think he should go to prison, does not mean I do not think he should be punished. Your statement asserts that the only means of punishment is incarceration. "I smell a lie, sorry to be blunt."
My main problems with this man are:
- The French governement shall not ask the USA to drop the charges just because Mr Polanski achieved movies awards and such. Beside some people from the government and some stars, almost no French support him. Again in the today TV debate "C dans l'air" on the French TV, after an sms question, no one who was present in the debate thinked he deserves a special treatment. So it would be good if some medias stop to say "The french are supporting him".
- I currently don't really care about the sentence, I am just disgusted that Mr Polanski refuses to be extradited and judged.
This is a man who has already lived into the twilight of his life. If you feel like we will have achieved some justice by forcing the man to die in prison, then fine. I do not feel that way.
I have the French nationality and Polanski lived in my country, mostly since 1978, and I don't think his life was that bad here. We're not talking about a poor powerless man here.
I don't care if he dies in prison or not. I want him to be judged, that's all. Now, I'll let the LA justice to decide what is the right sentence for him.
But the man doesn't even want to be judged. Back months ago, he could have gone to the USA, because given the new supposed things that were discovered in the documentaries, his lawyers tried to make the case dismissed (about the girl he raped). It was refused because Mr Polanski was not present, while given the law, he has to be present. While he would have probably not been charged anymore for the rape, you really think he would have been sentenced to 30y of prison because he fled? I don't think so, I don't even think he would have stayed in a prison for a long time (but i could be wrong).
Polanski's attorneys have sought to dismiss the case following the release of the HBO documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," which raised questions about judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The film contends Rittenband, who has since died, was improperly consulted by a prosecutor not assigned to Polanski's case about what kind of sentence the film director should receive. While Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza earlier this year found there was "substantial misconduct" in the handling of the original case, he dismissed Polanski's motion to throw out the case because the director did not appear in court. Polanski risked arrest on a fugitive warrant if he returned to Los Angeles. He has appealed Espinoza's decision, and a California appellate court is reviewing the case.
Now, if it happens that he can't use that excuse anymore, that will be entirely his fault.
-
Anyway the guy doesn't even want to spend 1 day in a prison, or even, not even want to be judged, even if the sentence is little, because he decided it. So far I only see an egocentrical person who thinks he is above everything.
My main problems with this man are:
- The French governement shall not ask the USA to drop the charges just because Mr Polanski achieved movies awards and such. Beside some people from the government and some stars, almost no French support him. Again in the today TV debate "C dans l'air" on the French TV, after an sms question, no one who was present in the debate thinked he deserves a special treatment. So it would be good if some medias stop to say "The french are supporting him".
- I currently don't really care about the sentence, I am just disgusted that Mr Polanski refuses to be extradited and judged.
I have the French nationality and Polanski lived in my country, mostly since 1978, and I don't think his life was that bad here. We're not talking about a poor powerless man here.
I don't care if he dies in prison or not. I want him to be judged, that's all. Now, I'll let the LA justice to decide what is the right sentence for him.
I think we generally agree on the grand scheme of things, with a little difference as to how we think he could be most appropriately punished. I agree with you that I want him to be judged on this instance. I think it's a sham that he was able to avoid prosecution and judgment for so long and, even more so, a sham that he thinks he should not even be prosecuted. Certainly the guilty must pay some debt for their crimes, and this is where we disagree. I'm more than content to agree to disagree on that issue, since the definition of justice is quite ambiguous, and people are free to interpret it however they feel. We all view justice as something different in our own minds; there's certainly nothing wrong with that.
So smite the criminal regardless of circumstance, that is your opinion? I fail to see how that delivers any more or less justice than my assertion that we should look for a means to create some social benefit from this situation. Your justice is delivered through your sense of "fairness", and my justice is delivered through my sense of "social ethical responsibility."
My bolding was probably misleading, what I meant is that the case justice is for everybody: you commit a crime => you get sentenced to something.
How you get judged, depending on circumstances, etc... is up to the judge.
Allowing somebody to escape trial is not the same as giving him a comprehensive sentence.
I'm assuming you just misspoke here, and you meant "It's not a perfect system, but it's the best one we've got." In which case, I argue that it may not be the best system. England seems to be doing rather well from a governmental standpoint, and their a monarchy. Canada is much in the same boat. On the other hand, the United States is $9 trillion in debt, and sinking further and faster every year. If the measure of the quality of a government is how it treats it's people, then I'd have to say that America has actually one of the worst governments in the world. There's a quote out there somewhere (I can't find it at the moment), about gaining better understanding of a society by looking at it's convicts. Well, America has more of them than any other country in the world; what does that say?
Yeah I misspoke the saying, sorry about that. I am fully aware of the multiple flaws of democracy (and not-so-democracies), but I value it still.
As sarcastic as you're being, I don't think you fully realize the positive implications of a system like this. If we started executing every single person who committed a crime, I think we'd see the crime rate drop dramatically. Unfortunately, we can't do that, as it infringes directly on the basic human right of life. Since we have that issue to deal with, why not try to gain benefit in other ways. There are plenty of starving people out there, plenty of homeless people out there, and I'm sure that Polanski's fortune could fund more than a few soup kitchens and homeless shelters for a good while.
I fully realize the advantages of such a system. What I was pointing at is precisely that values such as democracy and human rights are highly vulnerable to the utilitarian approach.
That's only one example. Hell, donate the money to a charity or organization that helps rehabilitate female victims of abuse, I don't care. I just think that there are far better ways to go about getting some justice than simply tossing him in prison.
No argument here. My main point being that he has to be sentenced, to what is up to the judge.
My bolding was probably misleading, what I meant is that the case justice is for everybody: you commit a crime => you get sentenced to something.
How you get judged, depending on circumstances, etc... is up to the judge.
Allowing somebody to escape trial is not the same as giving him a comprehensive sentence. I think I misconstrued what you said, because of the bolding. We seem to be in direct agreement on this issue. Everyone deserves to be judged for their crimes, but punishment lies with the penal system, and those who interpret it, on a case by case basis.
Yeah I misspoke the saying, sorry about that. I am fully aware of the multiple flaws of democracy (and not-so-democracies), but I value it still.No apologies necessary. As I said, I assumed you misspoke, I just like to nitpick for the sake a nitpicking. Call it a character flaw =P
I fully realize the advantages of such a system. What I was pointing at is precisely that values such as democracy and human rights are highly vulnerable to the utilitarian approach.This I find to be an unfortunate truth. We start to delve into question like "If someone takes a life, do they deserve to live?" when we get to here. As I said before, I'd prefer to see eye for an eye justice, but we live in a country where human rights must come first, for all people, regardless of their actions toward others.
No argument here. My main point being that he has to be sentenced, to what is up to the judge.Again, we are in complete agreement here. And, obviously, we could argue ad nauseam about what a fair punishment would be, but it is up to the judge to interpret the law and derive punishment from his interpretation. I simply hope that he will recognize where some benefit for others can come out of this situation, aside from just punishing the accused.
Again, we are in complete agreement here. And, obviously, we could argue ad nauseam about what a fair punishment would be, but it is up to the judge to interpret the law and derive punishment from his interpretation. I simply hope that he will recognize where some benefit for others can come out of this situation, aside from just punishing the accused.
If the case of rape is dismissed thanks to the documentary's infos, we can only wonder if they will sentence him because he fled. To be honest, I don't understand why he still refuses to be extradited.
Now for the tabloids:
"Switzerland let a guest walk into a nasty trap. We should be ashamed," said tabloid newspaper Blick.
Daily paper Le Temps said Switzerland had "shocked film buffs and friends of the arts with its kindly and efficient co-operation with US justice. It has angered Poland and France".
To caugh someone who has broken the law is actually a "nasty" trap :heh:
And I like the "It has angered Poland and France" :heh: Beside Mitterrand and his friends, nearly no one here is angered at what the Swiss Police did. And given the result of the national Polish survey that I posted ealier, not a lot of people in Poland are angered either.
And another news with the best source ever:
The Los Angeles Times on Monday said Polanski's lawyers may have sparked the arrest by claiming that prosecutors had never sought to extradite him in 30 years. It cited two unidentified sources as saying that court motions filed in July had suggested prosecutors were not serious about capturing him.
And finally, an article about France:
Roman Polanski, a sexual predator? Not in the eyes of the French media, which tend to describe him as the victim of a money-grabbing American mother and a publicity-hungry Californian judge.
The woman in question was Susan Gailey, whose daughter, Samantha, was at the centre of the case that led to Polanski’s arrest in Switzerland.
The French view is that Mrs Gailey pushed the 13-year-old — now known as Samantha Geimer — into Polanski’s arms in the hope of a movie career.
For the generation of French commentators who grew up the 1960s, Polanski was guilty only of pushing back the boundaries of sexual liberation.
The other figure in a tale that highlights the Franco-American gulf is Laurence J. Rittenband, the judge in charge of the case, who died in 1993. He is accused in France of reneging on his word over a plea bargain, making a series of procedural errors and using Polanski’s name to earn himself celebrity.
For France, there has never been any question of extraditing Polanski to the United States because he holds a French passport. Nor has his reputation been tarnished in Paris by the events of 1977. Instead, he is seen as a hero unjustly persecuted by America’s prosecutors and media.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6851562.ece
Even if it is true about our medias in France (sadly), and even if they put "french media" in the first lines of the article", articles like this one tend to give a rather bad view of the "French people" who are actually ok with the Californian Justice decision in majority.
FateAnomaly
2009-10-01, 22:42
For supporters of the fine sentence, how much would you say a appriopriate fine wil be? As far as i know there isn't a fine that is "All your money and assets".
For supporters of the fine sentence, how much would you say a appriopriate fine wil be? As far as i know there isn't a fine that is "All your money and assets".
I would have to see an estimate of his personal wealth (including any incoming royalty fees he may be pulling in from anything he's ever put his name on), to give an estimate of what I think would be a fair amount for a fine.
As a general statement, I'd say 85-90% of his current wealth should do quite nicely. It would give the state of California some money to spend on something worthwhile, and send the message that if the rich and famous want to commit crimes, then they can sacrifice their riches for rags, and fame for infamy.
It's high time for Polanski to face the goddamn music, even if it means spending the rest of his life in jail (which I doubt to be honest, but still...). Contrary to Whoopi's statement in her show, rape is, you know, just that, rape.
Also, seeing Guillermo del Toro's signature in the people defending Polanski makes me weep. (brb sobbing 'T_T)
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/court-records-show-polanski-agreed-to-pay-victim-to-settle-civil-suit/?scp=3&sq=Polanski&st=cse
Court Records Show Polanski Agreed to Pay Victim to Settle Civil Suit
By Michael Cieply
The film director Roman Polanski agreed to pay at least $500,000 to Samantha Geimer, the victim in his 1977 child-sex case, under a settlement to a civil suit Ms. Geimer later filed against him, The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday. Mr. Polanski agreed to the settlement in 1993, but as of 1996 still had not made the payment, according to court records that were provided to media outlets in Los Angeles in response to requests for access to the old case. It remained unclear whether the settlement was ever paid, though Ms. Geimer was still trying to collect as of 1996, by which time accrued interest had pushed the amount to over $600,000, according to the court records.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/movies/30polanski.html
France Divided Over Polanski Case
PARIS — After two days of widespread expressions of support for jailed filmmaker Roman Polanski, from European political leaders as well as leading cultural figures there and in the United States, the mood was shifting among French politicians Tuesday about whether the government should have rushed to rally around the Oscar-winning director.
Do successful artists get a pass for their moral failings or crimes?
Post a Comment » Marc Laffineur, the vice-president of the French assembly and a member of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s ruling center-right party, the UMP, took issue with the French culture and foreign minister’s remarks supporting Mr. Polanski, saying “the charge of raping a child 13 years old is not something trivial, whoever the suspect is.”
Within the Green party, Daniel Cohn-Bendit — a French deputy in the European parliament whose popularity is rising — also criticized Sarkozy administration officials for leaping too quickly to Mr. Polanski’s side despite the serious nature of his crime. On the extreme right, the father and daughter politicians Jean-Marie and Marine Le Pen also attacked the ministers, saying they were supporting “a criminal pedophile in the name of the rights of the political-artistic class.”
Meanwhile, an international team of lawyers was fighting Tuesday to free Mr. Polanski from a Swiss jail, where he’s being held for possible extradition to the United States. The arrest last weekend of the 76-year-old filmmaker as he arrived at Zurich’s airport to attend a local film festival is quickly exposing deep fault lines between his supporters in the arts, entertainment and politics and his increasingly outspoken critics.
Mr. Polanski a French and Polish citizen,. fled the United States in 1978 just before he was to be sentenced for having sex with a minor — a 13-year-old girl — under a plea agreement in which he avoided other charges including rape and sodomy.
For two days, supporters in the demi-monde of movies and media circulated petitions and took to the airwaves in his defense. Among them was the philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy (I didn't wait tody to dislike BHL anyway :uhoh: ), who suggested that perhaps the Swiss had more serious criminal matters to attend to than Mr. Polanski, who, he said, “perhaps had committed a youthful error.”
Marie-Louise Fort, a French lawmaker in the Assembly who has sponsored anti-incest legislation, said in an interview that she was shocked that Mr. Polanski was attracting support from the political and artistic elite. “I don’t believe that public opinion is spontaneously supporting Mr. Polanski at all,” she said. “I believe that there is a distinction between the mediagenic class of artists and ordinary citizens that have a vision that is more simple.”
The mood was even more hostile in blogs and e-mails to newspapers and news magazines. Of the 30,000 participants in an online poll by the French daily Le Figaro, more than 70 percent said Mr. Polanski, 76, should face justice. And in the magazine Le Point, more than 400 letter writers were almost universal in their disdain for Mr. Polanski.
That contempt was not only directed at Mr. Polanski, but at the French class of celebrities — nicknamed Les People — who are part of Mr. Polanski’s rarefied Parisian world. Letter writers to Le Point scorned Les People as the “crypto-intelligentsia of our country” who deliver “eloquent phrases that defy common sense.”
Still, many others continued to rally to the Oscar-winning director’s defense.
Film industry leaders like Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar, Martin Scorsese and Costa Gavras signed a petition with about 100 names that expressed “stupefaction” with the arrest of Mr. Polanski at the Zurich airport. But support was not universal; Luc Besson, a prominent French film director and producer, was not on the list, though he describes himself as a Polanski friend.
“This is a man who I love a lot and know a little bit,” Mr. Besson said in a radio interview with RTL Soir. “Our daughters are good friends. But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone. I will let justice happen.” He added, , “I don’t have any opinion on this, but I have a daughter, 13 years old. And if she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later.” Meanwhile, Mr. Polanski remains in custody somewhere in Zurich; officials have not said exactly where. He was, however, visited by French and Polish diplomats, who afterward pronounced that he was being well treated.
And it's continue from what I know and read the last few days. Huge disagreements between the French people, and many artists/politcians/journalists.
And another article but too long to quote: http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/the-polanski-uproar/?scp=5&sq=Polanski&st=cse
The Polanski Uproar
The recent arrest of Roman Polanski, the film director who fled to France from the United States in 1978 on the eve of sentencing for having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl, has caused an international ruckus. The French culture minister, Frédéric Mitterrand, and the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, both issued statements of support for Mr. Polanski. But many others in France have expressed outrage at that support and said he should face justice for the crime.
While it’s clear that the film industry forgave Mr. Polanski long ago, should society separate the work of artists from the artists themselves, despite evidence of reprehensible or even criminal behavior?
Jay Parini, writer
Mark Anthony Neal, professor, African American studies
Geraldine A. Ferraro lawyer
Damon Lindelof, TV executive producer
Mark Bauerlein, professor of English
Charlie Finch, art critic
Jonathan Rosenbaum, film critic
Judith Surkis, professor of history and literature
Jonathan Gilmore, philosophy professor
Click here to read the opinions of each of those people. (http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/the-polanski-uproar/?scp=5&sq=Polanski&st=cse)
This one is very interesting though
Hollywood Hypocrisy
Geraldine A. Ferraro, a lawyer and a former member of Congress, was the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 1984.
“A male is guilty of rape in the second degree when, being eighteen years old or more, he engages in sexual intercourse with a female less than fifteen years old. Rape in the second degree is a class D felony.”
That is the current law in New York. When I was prosecuting these cases in Queens in the 70’s the law required that the child be less than 14. The legislature tightened it. But there is no doubt that California had the same protections for children when Polanski was prosecuted in California for having intercourse with a 13-year-old girl. It still does.
Why has no one from the movie business, no one who supposedly stands up for the rights of women and girls, spoken up in support of finally bringing this man to justice?
This is the definition of statutory rape. Notice, it doesn’t talk about force and it doesn’t talk about consent. Neither are needed. The statute is meant to protect children. A 13-year-old can’t consent to intercourse with a man over 18, and certainly not with a man in his 30’s.
Polanski was convicted of a serious crime in the 70’s. He chose to abscond to France and because he had money and connections, has lived a charmed life, unhindered by his obligations to society. The message is, rich guys can get away with anything … or wait — is it only rich guys with friends in Hollywood? The statute of limitations for rape does not toll simply because 31 years has passed. And victims cannot “forgive” the rapist. The criminal justice system is meant to protect all of us.
Swiss rejects Polanski's bid on release (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091006/ap_on_en_mo/eu_switzerland_polanski)
BERN, Switzerland – Roman Polanski lost his first bid to win his freedom Tuesday as the Swiss Justice Ministry rejected an appeal by the 76-year-old to be immediately released from prison, an official said.
"We continue to be of the opinion that there is a high risk of flight," said ministry spokesman Folco Galli, explaining the decision. Well, yes, the earlier run Roman Polanski did years ago would count against his being allowed to leave Switzerland or be freed on parole before the hearing.
I'm just a bit puzzled here by this one bit in the article...
However, he was released after 42 days by an evaluator who deemed him mentally sound and unlikely to offend again.
The judge responded by saying he was going to send Polanski back to jail for the remainder of the 90 days and that afterward he would ask Polanski to agree to a "voluntary deportation." Polanski then fled the country, on Feb. 1, 1978, the day he was scheduled to be sentenced to the additional time. Okay, so the time that is still outstanding is just 48 days out of the original 90? And following after that would be a "voluntary deportation" after which, he may have a hard time returning to the U.S. legally? So for the first, was the extra 1.5 months (after already serving 1.5 months) that painful, and for the second, how would it be worse than his current situation where he couldn't go to any country with an extradition treaty with the U.S.?
Swiss rejects Polanski's bid on release (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091006/ap_on_en_mo/eu_switzerland_polanski)
Well, yes, the earlier run Roman Polanski did years ago would count against his being allowed to leave Switzerland or be freed on parole before the hearing.
They have some common sense. Given his past deeds, I think the decision is understandable.
I'm just a bit puzzled here by this one bit in the article...
Okay, so the time that is still outstanding is just 48 days out of the original 90? And following after that would be a "voluntary deportation" after which, he may have a hard time returning to the U.S. legally? So for the first, was the extra 1.5 months (after already serving 1.5 months) that painful, and for the second, how would it be worse than his current situation where he couldn't go to any country with an extradition treaty with the U.S.?
The man is weird (I bet "highly egocentric"). He could have come back to the US when his lawyer had the opportunity to dismiss the case ealier this year, but he didn't.
Yoko Takeo
2009-10-06, 16:34
I'm just a bit puzzled here by this one bit in the article ... Okay, so the time that is still outstanding is just 48 days out of the original 90? And following after that would be a "voluntary deportation" after which, he may have a hard time returning to the U.S. legally? So for the first, was the extra 1.5 months (after already serving 1.5 months) that painful, and for the second, how would it be worse than his current situation where he couldn't go to any country with an extradition treaty with the U.S.?
Yeah, this part had me confused as well. It was only 48 days. One month and a half wouldn't really have done him a lot of harm and he might have actually had better freedom of movement within other countries with the extradition treaty. He would've been deported from the US, meaining he would've paid for his crime within the boundaries of the country where he carried out the offence. That being said, I doubt any European country would've looked at him the wrong way if he paid the last 48 days. Guess he was an idiot on top of being a coward.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.