If we don't free child rapists, the terrorists have won
Oh look, it's yet another Washington Post editorial coming to the defense of poor Roman Polanski. This time it's written by Richard Cohen and it's called:
And see, right off the bat things get weird. Thanking a foreign country for freeing a child rapist is a little strange. It's akin to saying, "Thank you, North Korea, for crushing those dissidents" or "Thank you, China, for undermining our export sector." In other words, you don't normally pat countries on the head for doing things like this. Anyway, let's see where he's headed with this:
The Swiss got it right. Their refusal to extradite film director Roman Polanski to the United States on a 33-year-old sex charge is the proper dénouement for this mess of a case. There is no doubt that Polanski did what he did, which is have sex with a 13-year-old after plying her with booze. There is no doubt also that after all these years there is something stale about the case, not to mention a “victim,” Samantha Geimer, who has long ago forgiven her assailant and dearly wishes the whole thing would go away. So do I.
The scare quotes around the word "victim" are truly a sight to behold. Under Cohen's calculus, we should just free people who commit crimes if they've managed to escape the law for long enough. After all, getting an underage girl drunk and then raping her can totally be forgiven if it happened a long time ago.
There are only bad reasons to proceed with the prosecution.
Really? I can think of a good one right off the bat: He drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl. That's a pretty good reason in and of itself, even if "Chinatown" was a pretty sweet movie.
The first is to rebut the argument that some sort of legal or moral exception ought to be made for Polanski on account of his talent. Having just seen his film “The Pianist” for the second time, I salute his genius as, if I knew something about poetry, I might that of Ezra Pound.
Wait, I don't get the logic here. Per Cohen, one of the bad reasons to prosecute Polanski is because it will refute the morons who think we shouldn't prosecute people who make good movies? Does that make a lick of sense to you? And look, the movies aren't relevant to anything. He should go to jail because he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl.
The only argument in favor of Polanski’s continued freedom is that he is the victim of judicial misconduct. He had good reason to believe that the trial judge in his case was going to break the plea agreement and throw the book at him. He had already pleaded guilty to a reduced charge; he had already spent 42 days in Chino State Prison under psychiatric examination. [...] He ran from the prospect of a judge who was going to make his reputation at Polanski’s expense and send him to jail for a very long time. I would have done the same.
Well that's good to know, Rich! We'll keep that in mind if you ever get arrested for drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl!
But seriously, can anyone make sense of Cohen's moral reasoning here? His argument is that if you drug and rape a 13-year-old girl and you suspect that a mean and nasty judge might have it in for you then you have the right to... flee the country?!
Look, dude, we have an appeals process in this country for people who feel that they've been wrongfully imprisoned. And Roman wouldn't have been wrongfully imprisoned since he, you know, drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl.
(I know I keep mentioning this pesky little fact over and over again, but it's a pretty horrible crime that Polanski's defenders don't like to bring up. They should be reminded on a regular basis the sort of thing they're defending.)
OK, so where was I? Oh yeah: Even if poor, poor Roman Polanski had received a super-mean sentence from that nasty little judge, he could have easily appealed it. And given the fact that he's rich and can afford good legal help, his appeal probably would have been successful. Having a judge who doesn't like you doesn't give you a carte blanche to run off to France to escape justice, no matter how many times "The Pianist" made Richard Cohen cry.
It was this alleged -- but virtually proven -- miscarriage of justice that impressed the Swiss authorities and why they rejected the American requests for extradition. That was good. It would have been better, though, if at the same time they denounced the many artists and intellectuals who haughtily dismissed what Polanski had done on the basis of his talent and achievements. They thought of his films; they should have thought of their own daughters.
Wait, so now he's back to trashing people who defend Polanski on the basis of his artistic talents. Did Cohen write this column while sampling whatever vile concoction Polanski uses to ply his victims (or "victims," in Cohen's version)? I have no idea. I do know that it looks like Cohen vomited alphabet soup onto his computer screen and decided to file it as an opinion piece.
But on the other hand, "Rosemary's Baby" was a pretty sweet movie.
I agree that Roman should be held accountable for his actions. However, I am quite surprised to see such a post on this blog since there is a very PRO-Polanski crowd here. The language in this post is very direct and aggressive towards Roman and it will ruffle many feathers!
Roman:
I think we set double standards in society when talented people are concerned and I think people tend to forgive Roman's crime on the basis of his movies. For me, this is a scary thought. Should Phil Spectre be forgiven his crimes if he can continue to churn out #1 hit singles? The list goes on... If Roman makes a great movie, can we turn over another little girl to him?
The comments should be interesting on this one.
What if someone's really, really talented at raping 13 year old girls?
Why do you say that? Only a few Hollywood types have sided with Polanski on this. I think this is another "Libruls are EVIL" FauxNews talking point.
The post has only been up a couple hours and already several comments are piling up in defense of Roman. However, I do notice that it is much easier to attack the judge, the author of this piece than to address the ugly messy drugged sodomy of a 13 yr old girl.
I'm more worried about preserving the justice system than convicting rapists. I think it's actually quite easy to talk about the drugged sodomy of a 13 yr old girl. It's a lot harder to discuss how such a person could be set free and explain the failures of the US justice system and diplomatic policies that seek to protect the lawyers, judges, and cops more than they care about the well-being of the victim (first and foremost) or about justice being served.
The irony here is that justice shouldn't be harder on the victim than the crime itself. The way this was handled has resulted in yet one more victim of rape openly saying that she wouldn't recommend for other rape victims to come forward and live through what she has. If the accused pleads guilty and the victim feels satisfied, does it mean that now it's time for the vindictive judge to pursue his own political agenda?
And 30 years later, when the victim thought that this was finally behind her, we have a over-zealous bunch of male lawyers thinking that they really know what's best for this woman. Mind you, they would never provide any documents to Swiss authorities that could possibly in any way embarrass the USA or its justice system. But they don't mind at all if this woman spends 30 years of her life hearing about the most intimate details of her rape from every major news outlet in the US and Europe. Because these bunch of guys really know how to serve justice.
as you can see here.
No double standard here. Polanski deserves to rot in jail.
As far as I understand the rules of the game in the USA, such matters as accountability (and taxes) are for the little people, not for the rich and famous.
America imprisons more people than any other country on earth, and those in prison generally have one thing in common. No wealth and no fame.
Cohen is widely regarded--in the liberal blogosphere--as a terrible writer with often-ridiculous opinions. This one is no surprise.
As a former spouse of a victim (no quotes), I say hang Polanski by his balls.
Did Brad Reed just wander in from Red State?
With lines like, "It's akin to saying, "Thank you, North Korea, for crushing those dissidents" or "Thank you, China, for undermining our export sector," those are glaring examples of false equivalencies.
And then, "Having a judge who doesn't like you doesn't give you a carte blanche to run off to France to escape justice, no matter how many times "The Pianist" made Richard Cohen cry."
That's purely speculation, irrelevant, and makes me not care one whit about the rest of Reed's writing, whether I agree with the underlying thesis or not.
Of course now that reporters are getting fired or "retired" for what they said, it's surprising that Cohen would write such a thing either, since I would agree in general his movies aren't on trial.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Boy, you said it.
Thanks.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
It's bad form to ridicule columnists in influential newspapers when they make laughable arguments in defense of child rapists. Good to know.
We need a thread on how people who smoke in their cars are child abusers.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Oil gushes as BP halts drilling on relief well
Company declares this a 'good precaution' as it prepares to test new cap
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38200524/ns/disas...
Oh lookie...a REAL story.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
um...shame on you?
The legal ramifications of someone getting away with a major crime is a non-news item for you?
Oh pleeeease.
This is a story for People Magazine.
You want a real story...perverts and indicted criminals in our PRESENT government.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
I don't share your gauge of what constitutes a relevant story. Almost every piece on this site is an opinion piece and this is another one.
Why troll into the comments on this story to post links to completely unrelated topics? (not all trolls have to be repugs, some just try to change the subject and distract).
This blog is full of material to read. If you don't agree with this piece, fine but you can't say this is not a non-news item.
(and save it before you build the strawman that I was implying that BP story was a non-story).
The press lives in a world where being rich and powerful really is an excuse to commit atrocities without criminal accountability. Did you miss the Bush years?
If Polanski gets away with this excuse, lynchers and murderers all over the South-indeed, all over America--will have the precise precedent they want in order to make it through a comfortable old-age without ever having to pay for their crimes.
And, of course, the boys have their "It's just pussy, she has plenty, what's the problem? " rationale which never, never is utilized in cases where the capital colonialists have "plenty of money, for paying a living wage or a just amount for raw materials".
Or to be more accurate, the precedent was set long ago.
Once someone has pled guilty to a crime, and the judge accepts that plea, it's over. The judge does not get to change his mind when he realizes he was an idiot to agree to the plea bargain.
I am not a Polanski supporter. What he did was horrible. But the DA offered him a deal to plead guilty to a lesser crime. He agreed, and the judge accepted that deal.
Polanski showed up for the court-ordered psych eval and remained in custody until he was released by the state. Under the original agreement, at that time he was to agree to a voluntary deportation. Instead, the judge ordered him to return to court, and made it publicly known that he had changed his mind and was going to abrogate the plea bargain that he had accepted.
The bad precedent here isn't Switzerland's refusal to extradite - which, incidentally, wasn't because they're great fans of Polanski's. They requested evidence that the DA refused to provide, and the Swiss followed the law in quashing the extradition order.
The bad precedent is a DA that refuses to provide the paperwork requested to fulfill their extradition request. Following a bad precedent set by a judge who decides that bad publicity is reason enough to ignore that pesky little Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
Site is named CROOKS and LIARS. Polanski is a crook.
Then again, you're not the boss here. WAH! Don't tell me what to post bro! WAH!
He paid the victim, Samantha Geimer, $500,000. Plus, as the article notes, he served 42 days in Chino. Plus, he served a year or so under house arrest. Plus, he gets to live the rest of his life as a pariah in the eyes of the puerile.
Speaking of Samantha Geimer, here's what she has to say about it:
"Enough is enough. This matter should have been resolved 33 years ago." Geimer, who has publicly forgiven Polanski, says she can't understand why prosecutors continue to pursue the director, maintaining that he's not a threat to anyone. She adds, "At 76 years old? I don't think so."
Also, the timing of the prosecution's sudden interest in Polanski seems a bit fishy. After all, they had plenty of opportunities to pursue him over the last 33 years, and they didn't seem that concerned about him when "The Pianist" came out a few years ago. But his latest film, "The Ghost Writer," portrays Tony Blair as a war criminal and CIA tool. Could that be the reason for the prosecutor's sudden concern?
If someone is sued civilly, that has nothing to do with criminal liability. Since when is serving just part of your sentence not a problem?
There isn't anything fishy about bringing a criminal back to court because he fled the authorities and did not serve his full term. It happens all the time. Just not as often to the rich.
Did you even read my comment? I didn't say it was fishy for the prosecution to to attempt to bring him to justice, I said the timing of the prosecution's sudden interest in Polanski seems a bit fishy.
Samantha Geimer should have received some form of justice back when it happened. It is POLANSKI that has continued to victimize her by running away from his sentencing. It's POLANSKI who has kept this issue alive b/c he's continued to evade the law.
He never paid her either. He settled the civil case, but didn't pay.
He does not believe that drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 13 y/o who consistently said no and asked to go home was a crime. He doesn't think he deserves any punishment, which is why he ran away from his sentencing hearing.
He plead guilty to lesser charges. There's no question of guilt here. The man is a rapist, and b/c he was afraid he might have to spend 45 more days in a psychiatric facility, he used his fame and money to run away to Europe and live in luxury and continue to work in his chosen field.
He didn't run away from his sentencing. He was SENTENCED. He didn't run from 45 more days in a psychiatric facility, either - he had already been released. The judge accepted a plea bargain that was idiotic, and then realized just how bad it looked. And Polanski did what the judge had actually originally ordered - left the country voluntarily.
Dear lord, the original sentence was only 90 days. If he'd been sentenced to serve that in the county lock-up, he would have been out probably in less than a week. 42 in the Chino psych unit is a cakewalk compared to a real prison sentence, but blame the judge that agreed to the deal.
in America? Sure is. And as Exhibit One I give you George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanski...
polanski has said some pretty disgusting stuff about this
“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaeldeac...
of course there are plenty of pretty girls, but any friggin' idiot knows the term "jailbait", and jail is where polanski should be.
Hey, as a married 57 year old Amerikan male *I* want to "f---- young girls" also.
Except "young" being defined as 18 plus.
Polanski raped a child and is extremely delusional. One's opinion of him is all you need to know to determine someone's moral compass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JjxM85aWZY
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Knowing the Washington Post editorial page, they probably just want to make sure they keep open any possible future career in republican politics open for Roman.
Remember, being a pervert, pedophile and adulter or rapist IOKIYAR.
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
The judicial misconduct thing is pretty bizarre on its face. The plea bargain would have let Polanski off with a minimal sentence, mostly what he had already served, and probation on a charge of illegal intercourse with a minor under 15. Now that is a pretty sweet deal, since anywhere I have lived you are going to serve at least a year in the pen for consensual sex with a minor, let alone raping one. Polanski was also fully aware that the deal was not binding on the judge, who could increase the sentence at will, as can be seen in the transcript of the plea hearing.
But good enough for the Swiss?
The link is broken, but unless there was something very unusual in the plea bargain, the judge may have had the option of changing the sentence from the agreed upon 90 days, but that option has to be exercised BEFORE sentencing.
In other words, the judge could have accepted the plea but imposed a sentence of 2 years (or whatever the maximum is for the reduced charge). But once the judge imposes a sentence, he can't come back later and say, "You know, I've changed my mind, now you have to serve more."
The DA that offered the deal was an idiot. The judge that agreed to it was just as bad. Don't even ask me my opinion of Polanski's morals or behavior. Polanski is responsible for his actions, and things like this make me think that a hell to roast in for eternity might be something to hope for. But the legal situation is the fault of the DA & judge.
Here is the link again: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/20.... You will see that Polanski is told twice that the judge is not bound by the plea deal *at all* and that he may impose whatever sentence he chooses. Polanski peads guilty anyway.
I've noticed before the tendency at this site to revert to childish attitudinizing. This piece hits new lows. That it should appear at all here makes me doubt the judgment of all concerned. Moral outrage is as easy as self-pity and just as shallow and empty.
Well Said.
I don't defend Polanski one bit. That said, Brad Reed is a dumbass.
Here:
Reed knows nothing about our appeals process, apparently. If he did, he would know that an appeal of a criminal sentence is highly deferential to the sentencing judge's discretion.
Also:
Actually, you always have "carte blanche" to run away from anything you want. The question is whether you have "carte blanche" to commit a crime, and then whether you will be punished for it. Running away is an exercise in avoidance, and everyone has the right to try it. If the government can't bring you to justice, it's the government's fault, not yours. Maybe you'd prefer it if the government sent a team of assassins after Polanski and just offed him ala Vlad Putin.
Appeals are generally based on facts and legal mistakes.
And they don't allow new facts, they all have to be raised in the original trial, of which the plea-bargain would've prevented.
If the judge went against the deal, but stayed within the usual sentencing guidelines, there would be little to appeal.
It would give Polanski and opportunity to sue his own lawyers for legal malpractice, but once in jail that would serve little purpose.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Polanski specifically knew that the judge was not bound by the plea deal and was fully entitled to impose a harsher sentence before he made the deal. See the transcript I link to above.
A plea bargain is between the accused and the prosecution. The accused agrees to plead guilty, generally to a lesser charge, and the prosecution agrees to ask for a lighter sentence.
The JUDGE is never bound by the plea and is free to impose a different sentence.
There are (rarely used) plea deals in which the prosecutor and defendant agree on a sentence and agree that the sentence is binding on the judge. The judge does not have to accept the guilty plea, but if he does he's bound by the sentence. Like I said, it's rare, but you're wrong to say "never."
One detail - the judge is seldom bound by the plea (it depends on the deal itself), but once the judge passes sentence, he IS bound by that judgement. The judge in this case had already sentenced Polanski.
No he had not. Polanski fled before the sentencing hearing. the judge had merely accepted his guilty plea to the lesser charge. He could still sentence him to any term within the appropriate sentencing guidelines for the crime he plead guilty to and was convicted of.
plea agreements and the appeals process.
But he isn't the dumbass here.
It isn't the government's fault when criminals aren't brought to justice. It is the criminal's fault for committing the crime and running. Running from the criminal law isn't a "right." If the US courts are thwarted by Switzerland, then that isn't a failure of the US justice system.
You have a right to not do time unless the government can bring you to justice via constitutional means. That's what is meant by "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
You have a right to a fair trial, as defined by the constitution: things like probably cause, freedom from unreasonable searches, confronting accusers, speedy trial, etc. etc.
You don't have the right to step outside the judicial process and flee the country.
If you are falsely accused of murder, it is your right to defend yourself. It isn't your right to flee.
I'd suggest you read a little something about the law, except for the fact that it is fairly clear you lack the reasoning capacity to absorb much.
so why you chose that tactic is beyond me.
Believe me, I've read plenty about the law. I've got it pouring out my ears right now.
And I think you misunderstand me: Alls I'm saying is that there is a justice system in this country. It is set up so as to comport with "due process of law." According to the Fifth Amendment "due process" must be followed before the federal government can deprive a person of "liberty." (The Supreme Court has incorporated that the "due process" clause of the Fifth Amendment to apply to the states, as well.) In short, due process is a limit on government action; it is something that is required of the government before you can be put in jail. Now (pay attention, because I'm going to use something call "deductive reasoning" here--go ahead and look it up if you need to), the flipside of the "due process" requirement is that you have a "freedom," or "right," not to be locked up unless and until the government has followed the proper process. This includes arrest, detention, etc. Ultimately, this means that it's the government's job, not the accused's, to ensure the process (in Polanski's case, sentencing) is followed.
Maybe you were talking about morality. I wasn't. I was talking about the law.
would lead to the conclusion that if, for example, the government failed to schedule a hearing on the sentencing, or lost the paperwork, it would be the government's responsibility.
Deductive reasoning does not lead to the conclusion that someone skipping out on a sentencing hearing is the government's fault.
A fair understanding of the facts would lead you to the conclusion that the government did provide him due process. He pleaded guilty. I don't know if you've ever seen a judge take a guilty plea. It takes about twenty minutes, because the judge has to ask, and the defendant has to affirm, every Constitutional right he is waiving. For reference, the script looks like this:
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/judges/practices...
If you look on page 4, you will see that he had to state that he understood that sentencing guidelines may not be followed.
I haven't seen any serious argument that the plea was wrongly taken. I haven't seen any thing to rebut the fact that he fled the country rather than have the sentencing hearing he was fully informed about when he took the plea.
There may be a question as to whether the US followed the requirements of the extradition treaty - but that has zero to do with the rights granted the accused under the Constitution.
Polanski was given a fair trial, and chose to plead guilty. He ran away from his sentencing hearing b/c he was afraid the judge might actually sentence him.
He's a rapist who doesn't think he did anything wrong, b/c, you know, he's a rapist.
He had the means to run away DESPITE being given due process of law.
...so sure! Let's give the bastard a pass -- time heals all wounds. Lucky him.
Tough luck for those who can't bolt to Europe of course, but hey: those were some really good (sensitive?) movies this guy made. He's an artist. Everyone knows they hear a different drummer. (And let's not forget there were those great movies...)
Oh, and of course, it was a startling revelation to learn a few posts back that there's an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico! Who knew?
http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/...
If she said no multiple times, it certainly sounds like standard rape even though apparently there's some reason, according to this article, that he did not know the girl's age.
However, since he pleaded guilty before leaving the country, that sounds like something that has never been established in fact, since the only hearing he was waiting for was the sentencing phase.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
By pleading guilty, Polanski established as fact that he had sex with a girl he knew to be 13 and he knew that there was sufficient evidence to convict him on the charges brought. Read the transcript of his plea linked above.
But pleading guilty was part of an agreement that he feared the judge would not honor, since they are not required to.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
He specifically knew that the judge was not bound by the deal and could impose a harsher sentence when he plead guilty. He made that decision, in full knowledge of the risks, of his own free will. Read the freaking transcript of the plea linked to above.
I'm not fond of plea-bargains in general
The guilty get off with a lighter sentence
And the innocent convicted on a weak case.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
One can also argue that they're coercive in nature
Which if it were any other contract would not be honored in court...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
That was the Charles Manson gang.
That and being imprisoned by the Nazis as a child is what some people use in Polanski's defense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xioCGmZVoqw
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
"Michelle Obamas" is a troll. Don't give her any more food.
In his scathing review of Salvador Dali's autobiography ("benefit of Clergy"), Orwell wrote:
In an age like our own, when the artist is an altogether exceptional
person, he must be allowed a certain amount of irresponsibility, just as
a pregnant woman is. Still, no one would say that a pregnant woman should
be allowed to commit murder, nor would anyone make such a claim for the
artist, however gifted. If Shakespeare returned to the earth to-morrow,
and if it were found that his favourite recreation was raping little
girls in railway carriages, we should not tell him to go ahead with it on
the ground that he might write another KING LEAR.
In defense (I think) of Brad, this item might be here because Cohen is primarily a political write (however poor) hence his opinion fair game.
The judgement of someone who is in favour of raping 13 year olds (girls or boys) is questionable at best.
I guess in brad reed's mind robbing a pizza is as bad as murder.
Hope he never gets on any juries
Or that they order pizza for lunch...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Blame the US Government which refused to give Switzerland the information they requested; that is the reason they refused the extradition. The US has been doing this for years now: they refuse to share any information that might possibly be embarrassing, and in the process make everyone suspect of any US request.
The same happened with the Omar Khadr case in Canada, where the US refused to provide any evidence they had that Khadr was a terrorist, leading the Canadian courts to conclude that no such evidence exists.
So blame the US government.
Oh, and Cohen's an idiot.
That's the critical part of this whole thing that gets lost.
I'm not defending Polanski, although I do believe there was some political gamesmanship in his initial conviction. That said, he's wanted now not for statutory rape but for evading justice and fleeing.
The Swiss would have respected our rule of law if the US had respected theirs re: extradition.
If the DOJ wants to put a real dent in child molestation, they ought to arrest the Pope the next time he visits the USA.
I agree, but that is no reason to object to putting Polanski's child raping ass in prison.
Here's another example of false equivalencies like reed seems so enamored with:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iowa_obama_bill...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
“People are defending Roman Polanski because he made some good movies? Are you kidding me? ... Even Johnnie Cochran don’t have the nerve to go, 'Well, did you see O.J. play against New England?'”
I must have missed the column where Richard Cohen said this about Michael Vick.
(P.S.: I DID see OJ play against New England. It was awesome. He's still guilty.)
Cohen said that Polanski's talent is no reason to excuse his actions.
Polanski is a sick man. I don't watch his movies. He should be in jail. But if there is anyone to blame for justice not being served, I would pin it on a judge more interested in exploiting Polanski's notoriety for personal political gain than in delivering justice. International refugee law and US policies recognize asylum seekers who can demonstrate that they would be persecuted for political reasons. Switzerland is home to the international agency that oversees most of the world's refugees. They probably need to hear a good argument from the US for why they should allow Polanski to be extradited, and I'm willing to bet that they haven't heard it.
You have to think about everyone else who has ever fled their country because they had reason to believe that they wouldn't receive justice. Is there a special standard to decide what kind of crimes deserve justice and what kind of crimes make it more important to punish the accused than to deliver justice? I think that you are purposefully downplaying the importance of justice here. Instead, you are appealing to people's emotions by mentioning rape in every other sentence. It's almost as if you didn't want your readers to think, you just want them to feel.
about the concept of pleading guilty that is confusing to you?
By pleading guilty, you admit that you committed the crime. You do so knowing the sentence that may be handed down. If he wanted a different measure of "justice," then he shouldn't have admitted the crime. It isn't as if - as is the case with ordinary people - he was forced to plea because he lacked the resources to mount a defense.
He did plea guilty. That's the whole point. You plead guilty to a specific charge brought against you, not that you committed a crime wherein the charges can be changed at any time and any offers made to you by the judge in exchange for your guilty plea don't matter at all. When you plead guilty but find out that you've been lied to by the judge and that the judge is using your plea for political gamesmanship wherein he is going to throw the book at you not to serve justice, but for his own personal political gain, would you not flee the country?
they are made by the prosecutors.
The only reason polanski was in court was because he RAPED A CHILD. If he not done that there would have been no personal political gain to be had.
The judge in this case was not part of the problem at all. For you to suggest that he was is ridiculous and implies that anyone who is on trial for a crime should feel free to flee the country if they think the Judge is going to be hard on them.
We needed another FDR, instead we got another clinton.
"The only reason polanski was in court was because he RAPED A CHILD. If he not done that there would have been no personal political gain to be had."
Hey ladies, if one man rapes you, come to the justice system for help so that another man can show just how tough and vindictive he is. You never know, you might even enjoy reading about the intimate details of your raping in ever major newspaper in the Western world for the next 30 years! So what if what the justice wrought is worse on the victim than the crime, it's not the justice system's fault that Polanski raped some girl! They're just trying to make a living here. For crying out loud...
The judge isnt' part of the plea agreement at all.
A plea is between the accused and the prosecution. The judge is not bound at all, but if the judge makes a wildly different sentence, that can be cause for appeal.
Please actually read the plea before making crazy accusations that Polanski somehow was not being served justly.
He admitted he raped a child. He didn't think it was wrong then, he doesn't think it's wrong now. So he doesn't think he should go to jail for it.
He has used his fame and wealth and connections to avoid justice. He was never DENIED justice. Samantha was denied justice. Polanski FLED justice.
I never said that he was denied justice. I also believe that he's a real creep and that he should be in jail. I did say that he believed that he was going to be persecuted for political reasons.
Ultimately, I'm not as familiar with the criminal justice system as many of the other posters in this thread. I do know, however, what my some of my rights would be as an asylum seeker. When considering an extradition request, the host nation has to be very careful that it doesn't violate its international treaties, laws, and the due process that it affords for its own citizens, lawful residents, visitors, asylum seekers, etc.
I know that if you feel that you are being politically persecuted in your home country, fleeing that country is an option and international law respects this as the appropriate course of action. In essence, it is your right to try to flee. A very misleading claim made by some posters on this thread is that because there are new charges against Polanski for resisting justice, it means that the original politicizing of his trial isn't relevant anymore and the Swiss shouldn't try to take it into consideration nor demand proof of wrongdoing. That is just about as inconsistent as it could get with international refugee law.
Incidentally, there are a number of very notable US citizens, who, should they ever travel to certain parts of the world, would face arrest and stand trial for war crimes or crimes against humanity. If we want Polanski back, why don't we send them Kissinger or North or Cheyenne? Tit for tat. Why should the Swiss care if the U.S. wants to have justice for its own citizens if the U.S. doesn't seem to give one bit about justice anywhere else in the world?
Well said.
Watch this 2008 HBO documentary and I believe you will change your mind. The judge in the case is the person who should have gone to jail. Polanski made a deal to serve time which the judge broke, so Polanski fled.
especially since Polanski's mother died in Auschwitz and his father barely survived his concentration camp experience, not to mention the fact that Polanski himself narrowly escaped being sent to a concentration camp by pretending to be Catholic.
What the fuck does this have to do with pleading guilty to raping a 13 year old and then fleeing sentencing?
I was replying to the previous comment that "Polanski made a deal to serve time which the judge broke, so Polanski fled." Having both of your parents spend time in concentration camps, where one of them died, might result in a heightened sense of fear towards judges and penal systems, and since the judge in the case seemed particularly vindictive, Polanski's actions are understandable.
I suppose if you form the argument that these experiences merely explain his behavior and doesn't justify it, I'll agree with you.
Even that does not make sense, as it ignores Polanski's current status at the time of the trial. As a rich, famous, well connected, white guy, he had every reason to expect a degree of deference from the courts.
So would being black or Hispanic, but that does not excuse such actions or give any reasons not to extradite.
the judge should have taken that history into account and denied him bail.
We needed another FDR, instead we got another clinton.
seemes to have been screwing women of legal age.
my bad, I thought he was being sarcastic.
Polanski knew exactly what he was doing and the possible consequences, including the judge imposing a longer sentence, when he plead guilty. It is in the court transcript I linked to above.
Judges can't make deals binding deals with the attorneys or accused, for reasons of discouraging corruption. He didn't break a deal. He just didn't do what was expected.
I didn't know we sent judges to jail for sentencing child rapists.
Not to mention that anywhere I have ever lived the best deal you are ever going to get for consensual sex with a minor, which this was not, is a year in the state pen plus probation.
that's usual for a 15 or 16 or even 17 or 18 year old boy having consensual sex with a girl who while underage is nearly the boy's age.
This case is about a 40 year old man and a 13 year old girl. They call it the "age of consent" because presumably one who is under that age can not give "informed" consent. Unless things have changed radically since I was 13, a girl (or boy) that age can not.
I agree with this and was only alluding to the "best case scenario" where the girl was a willing participant rather than drugged and raped.
The prosecutor and the defendant make the deal. Most jurisdictions allow for deals that bind the judge, but the judge has discretion to reject the deal. If that happens, the case proceeds to trial.
So given the heinous nature of the crime, if Polanski's deal was too sweet, a judge could legally overturn the deal?
Keep in mind, judges are elected...Accepting that deal probably would not have gone over well with the constituency.
For a crime of this magnitude I would think it was a federal judge who's appointed.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Also, there must be a federal crime to go to federal court.
It was in California state court. Read the transcript. Rape is not a federal crime and he violated California, not federal law, which does not specify an age of consent.
Judges don't "overturn" plea deals. It works like this:
1. You get charged with a crime.
2. The prosecutor, in exchange for your agreeing to plead guilty (and thusly save the government time and resources), agrees to do something. This is usually a lesser offense that carries a shorter penalty. Often, the prosecutor will agree to recommend a particular penalty. (NOTE: The judge is not involved in this process in any way.)
3. There is a plea hearing, at which the judge accepts or rejects the defendant's guilty plea. At this stage, the defendant is pleading guilty to the lesser, agreed-to charge. If the judge accepts the plea, he is bound to sentence the defendant within the sentencing range available for the pleaded-to crime. Anything the plea deal contained regarding a sentence is non-binding on the judge--it is merely a recommendation. Think of it as the prosecutor's agreement to take it easy on you. If the judge rejects the plea (and he can do so generally only if he thinks it's not voluntary), you go to trial.
Sometimes, though, the prosecutor and defendant agree to a particular charge and sentence. The agreement says it's binding on the judge. If the judge accepts the deal, he has to give the defendant the agreed-to sentence. If not, you go to trial.
I don't know what kind of deal Polanski got, but I'm pretty sure of one thing: even if the judge was exceptionally slimy, I doubt he did anything illegal.
The problem is, from what I've read, the judge accepted the deal with the 90-day sentence provision. If that's the case, he doesn't get to change his mind when he sobers up and realizes what an idiot he was.
Funny thing is, the long and short of the original deal was that Polanski would serve a token sentence and then get the hell out of the States forever - which is pretty much what's happened. Since the victim wants to drop it, I've got no problem with letting him wander around Europe till he drops.
He accepted a plea of guilty to a lesser charge, not to any sentencing guidelines. He had not passed sentence before Polanski fed the country.
It depends on the type of plea agreement he got. A judge is not bound by sentencing provisions in a plea agreement unless the plea is expressly conditioned on the judge accepting the agreed-to sentence. This type of deal is rare. Otherwise, the judge is bound only by the pleaded-to charge, and can impose any sentence he feels apt.
The problem in this case is that the judge allegedly conferred with Polanski and his attorneys prior to the original plea and agreed to take the plea deal thus inducing Polanski to plead guilty. The Swiss asked to see testimony from a commission that investigated these allegations and the U.S. refused to provide it. All of the nasty details of the crime and moral questions of sentencing are irrelevant to the U.S. Justice Departments failure to comply with the extradition treaty and provide all relevant information.
California does not allow deals which bind the judge, which Polanski knew when he plead guilty. Read the transcript I link to above. It is all there and the court went to great lengths to ensure that he knew what he was getting into.
Polanski ran away from the sentencing hearing. He was found guilty, he's just evaded sentencing and justice for decades b/c he's rich and famous.
He ran away from his sentencing hearing b/c he was afraid the judge might actually sentence him.
We'll never know what the judge might have done b/c Polanski ran away. The judge never had a chance to do anything.
Again, a plea bargain is between the accused and the prosecution, NOT THE JUDGE.
Had Polanski been sentenced to prison (which the judge had agreed not to do, but was going to go back on his promise) he would likely have been killed by other inmates. Polanski fled for his life before being sentenced to death.
Maybe he shouldn't have fucking raped that 13 year old girl then.
between adults and 13 year old children that we will not drug them and sodomize them.
-Polanski was a great director
-Polanski was imprisoned by the Germans
-Polanski's mom died in Auschwitz
-The judge was breaking a promise
-The pianist was fantastic
-Polanski fled for his life
ALL CHILD RAPISTS are in danger of being killed in prison. Why not set them all free? Why just the rich film maker?
I wish they would just let it go. I know he is a criminal and what he did is horrifying. But in light of the fact that the victim no longer wishes for prosecution and, in fact, wants it to go away, I think it should. Also, I'm not trying to mitigate Polanski's responsibility for what he did but WHAT kind of parent lets their 13 year old child go to JACK NICHOLSON's house to pose for photos and leaves her unsupervised to the degree that this could happen to her? This was a time when everyone was partying and qualudes where party favors. I was a kid at the time it happened so I don't really remember the story but it sounds to me like the parent should have been sitting in a jail cell, too, for neglect and child endagerment.
stopped being relevant the moment the state was involved in prosecuting him.
We needed another FDR, instead we got another clinton.
Some crimes can be prosecuted without the victim's cooperation, but it's damned hard to prosecute a rape without it.
And of course, there's a pretty good sized philosophical question there - is it morally and ethically right to pursue a prosecution, especially a 30 year old prosecution, in a case where the victim doesn't wish to proceed? Is it a good thing to tell a crime victim that her wishes are irrelevant?
The State has a responsibility to maintain civil order, enforce its laws, protect noncriminals, and remove criminals from the streets. That's its job. When the State fails to uphold its own laws and moral order, civil order is damaged, and errodes
Switzerland's got our streets?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Yes, let's let the victim decide. Someone steals from me and I decide the perp should hang from the nearest tree? Let it be done!!
That is the only issue that is significant.
Wonder why the largely Catholic Europeans aren't screaming foul?
Never mind, I just remembered.
Because their chickens came home to roost?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The story seems to be the Swiss refusing to extradite Polanski, who cares what Cohen thinks of that or Reed thinks of Cohen?
It's like when a politically oriented director directs an American Carol against another politicial director in a personal grudge match.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The reason Polanski fled is that he feared the judge would go back on his word (and he did) and put Polanski in a prison where he would have been killed by inmates. He fled for his life.
The judge NEVER sentenced Polanski. Polanski just feared he might have to spend another month and a half in a psychiatric facility instead of time served, so HE RAN.
We'll never know what the judge might have done b/c POLANSKI RAN.
Judges, AGAIN, are NOT part of plea agreements and are free to sentence differently.
Polanski was never in danger of being killed.
Polanski was justified in fearing for his life if sent to prison. Hence, he fled.
Inmates do not take kindly to child rapists. This is truth. I support the feelings of these inmates.
#1 Don't break laws and you won't end up in prison
#2 Don't fuck children
#3 If you do fuck children, prepare for ALL the consequences. (The consequences are not a mystery. They are not hidden or kept secret. Ignorance is not an excuse.)
Do you really believe this? I mean, I support the feelings of those who would deny the right to vote to anyone to ignorant to realize wrongful convictions occur. Not that I would do that, or anything.
Reading just the tidbits that were posted here from the editorial, it appears the first part of it is sarcasm. Pure and simple. First he goes and thanks them for releasing Polanski, then he spends the rest of the article destroying (albeit badly) all reasons to defend Polanksi. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Do you guys think when you hear someone say "thanks buddy for spilling my drink" they are really thankful?
My sister was raped at age 13 the guy who was in his 40's and not famous only got six months in county jail. Roman is a scumbag and not seeing his movies is much more punishment then the courts would ever give him back then. Raping Samantha again 33 years later in a court of law is what would be despicable now.
let's stick to topics with a political theme. I don't think a discussion about this topic belongs on C&L.
Even Polanski's long-ago victim has said, hey, I've forgiven him, time to move on.
So should we.
BID
Just as fans of Joan Crawford defended her abuse of her children; just as Mel Gibson fans feel his x-girlfriend 'brought the beatings on herself, Polanksi fans will overlook his criminal beahvior.
It's sickening. The likes of Pulanksi and Gibson belong in prison, but they are surrounded by legions o enablers.
It would seem their fame has given them a free pass to victimize others.
My senator Debbie Stabenow got her son not to be charged with drunk driving after hitting two parked cars in Ypsilanti MI. and her husband was caught visiting a prostitute in Troy MI. and he never got arrested or did not have to forfeit the Cadillac that was registered to her and himself as everyone else does in the state.
This is always going to be a very divisive issue of course, but one could point out that in Germany the age of consent is thirteen. Countries outside the Anglosphere - and Polanski hails from one - generally have far less stringent laws about this sort of thing.
he raped and sodomized that girl
he is a pig
"Sodomy" is ambiguous. Doesn't it mean a few different things?
Let's not forget that, at the time of Polanski's plea deal, ages of consent were significantly lower in several U.S. states. The move to raise ages of consent to 16, 17 or 18 has been a VERY recent phenomenon. After all, children were viewed as the property of their parents or legal guardians. Girls, in particular, have long been viewed as more desirable for marriage when younger in many cultural traditions around the world, including in the United States.
Also, ages are determined on a state-by-state basis here, whereas in many other countries there is one federal law that addresses age of consent. For instance, in Canada (where I grew up), the federal age of consent was fourteen until it was raised to sixteen about two years ago. Before that, it was twelve.
Until the 1960s, ages of consent were as low as ten in some American states with parental approval. When Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin Myra in 1958, the public outcry started when a reporter from the UK learned about it - until then it barely made news in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_r...
But not in California or most parts of the country where the age of consent has long been 18 and Jerry Lee Lewis almost lost his career over marrying that 13 year old. I was actually and adolescent in the 60s, so it mattered to me.
First of all, where do you get the idea that the age of consent in Germany is 13? Generally, it is 16.
This according to Wikipedia:
"The age of consent in Germany is 14, as long as a person over the age of 21 does not exploit a 14–15 year-old person's lack of capacity for sexual self-determination. In this rare and special case, a conviction on an individual over the age of 21 requires a complaint from the younger individual; being over 21 and engaging in sexual relations with a minor of that age does not constitute an offense in and of itself. Otherwise the age of consent is 16, although provisions protecting minors against coercion apply until the age of 18."
Also, you're making a very weak case by saying that Polanski, being European, and having grown up in a country bordering on Germany, may have thought it was OK to rape a 13-year-old. Laws on rape in Germany and other European countries are quite stringent.
First off, Cohen will defend anything, anything! connected to Israel, or anyone who belongs to the Jewish cult. Had Mel Gibson been Jewish, Mr.Cohen would have found a way to demonize Gibson's wife, painting her as a gold digger.
If Cohen, can justify killing aid workers trying to bring respirators to hospitals in Gaza, he can justify anything in his neocon, war loving column.
don smith
Every Christian clergy does it.
Polanski had sex with a girl. Clergy can't do that, has to be boys.
:)
If I were a judge I think I might have negative feelings toward a man who had admitted that he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. Actually, as a human being, I have negative feelings toward a man who drugged and raped anyone, regardless of age or sex.
is an obsolete caricature of the left. Cohen has no balls, except when Jonah Goldbergs tiny twosomes are stuffed into his mouth.
jjandy had it right here:
"The problem in this case is that the judge allegedly conferred with Polanski and his attorneys prior to the original plea and agreed to take the plea deal thus inducing Polanski to plead guilty. The Swiss asked to see testimony from a commission that investigated these allegations and the U.S. refused to provide it. All of the nasty details of the crime and moral questions of sentencing are irrelevant to the U.S. Justice Departments failure to comply with the extradition treaty and provide all relevant information."
Maybe there was judicial malfeasance, maybe not. The prosecuters didn't do a good job of convincing the Swiss.
At least from certain lefties, is because they're trying to put him in the same league as those black-listed Hollywood industry people from the 50s. Fuck 'em. If OJ and Blake have to pay and/or do time, so does an auteur pedo asshole. And the Swiss were probably bought by him just like they were bought by the druglords and Nazis.
OJ was cleared of the murder charges, hung up on the civil damages, and now in jail for a separate charge of armed robbery.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
and/or...
So if priests are really fabulous artists then they can get away with drugging and raping 13 year old boys, especially if it was a long time ago. I suggest we look at some of their old school records and the ones that got high scores in art get a pass. That would really simplify things for the courts world wide.
As I understand the facts of the case;
Polanski was offered a plea deal in exchange for his confession.
At the last minute the judge (probably for political “tough on crime” reasons) reneged on the deal and was going to sentence him to the maximum.
I do not believe he should be given special treatment because of his esteem, wealth and talent.
I do not believe that just because it was a long time ago it should be “put behind us”
But at the same time I have problems with the United States case.
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
nothing is going to get better. It's not.
- Dr. Suess
Comments are closed on this entry