The Polanski case

[Kusa-San]

Originally Posted by Narona

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 .

Polanski was well aware that he was researched by the justice. Now he will pay and go to jail. That's all.

[mg1942]

and like I said the Lifetime Achievement Award is hard to resist

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

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 .

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.

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

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 .

That was pointed out by a french lawyer. Those artists are not even credible.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

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.

Originally Posted by Proto

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.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

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.

[Thingle]

Now He will Regret that stupid trip to Switzerland.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Narona

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]

Originally Posted by Narona

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

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

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.

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

It's because they have no copyright on the girl

Come on msn, I will give you the text in French.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Narona

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?

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

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.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Narona

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.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

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.

[Dilla]

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.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Dilla

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/...d_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)

[Jinto]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Jinto

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]

Originally Posted by Dilla

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.

[LynnieS]

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, 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?