The Polanski case

[Narona]

(
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_P...ime_conviction

For those who are lazy to click (please, read if you have not all the infos about this case, before replying)

Spoiler for Text:

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?p...d=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 but it's a personal opinion) , I think that case raises two problems:

- His colleagues ( ) 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

[ganbaru]

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]

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.

[Cipher]

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]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

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.

[Sackett]

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.

[Tsuyoshi]

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]

All I have to say is: Face up to it, Roman. Stare it down and just get it over with.

[Vexx]

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.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Vexx

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]

Originally Posted by Vexx

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.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

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.

[Telmah]

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]

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.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

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.

[Zetsubo]

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 ?

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Vexx

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.

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

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:

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

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]

Originally Posted by Vexx

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 )

Well anyway Polansky must be judge and go to jail for what he did. There is no exception even for (in)famous people !

[Narona]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

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:



Really? I mean... really...?