Talk about "Justice Delayed."

Now let's see if any conviction and prison time follows.

Polanski Victim Wants Him to be Forgiven

Spud's got all his movies.

Never seen a case were sentenced and the defendent runs away and catch him and the judge died. Personally I think the original judge rules but that was a long time ago and bringing up new charges... hmmm Would love to be a defenses lawyer on that....although the man was was freak.

"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."

Given the 2nd sentence is demonstrably untrue and that she hasn't seen Polanski in 30 years and wouldn't be qualified to determine his mental state is she had, the victim probably isn't the best person to make this determination.

New charges should include international flight to avoid prosecution. That alone should finish his life in jail.

That alone should finish his life in jail.
#8 | Posted by American1st | Flag: Compassionate Conservative

Whether the victim now feels that Polanski deserves a break isn't an issue anymore he committed a serious crime and used his monied status to flaunt the law. If he's allowed to get off with a slap on the wrist it'll just be more proof that justice can be bought.

#9 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-09-27 12:04 PM | Reply

Well, I did tone it down some...my initial response would have been the death scentence.
Fuck a damned pedophile, and those who would apologize for them.

*sentence*

ANSWER:
Fuck a damned pedophile
#11 | Posted by American1st

QUESTION:
So, what's on your agenda for today?

"If he's allowed to get off with a slap on the wrist it'll just be more proof that justice can be bought."

In his case it isn't just money. There is also his status as a celebrity and an artist. If the only thing to change in this story was that Polanski was the ex-CEO of GE, none of the people defending him would be doing so. Polanski has our fascination with Hollywood and the tendency of faux-intellectuals to believe they are obliged to defend artists working for him.

this pre-dates Pedo-Bear... it should be thrown out immediately.

#13 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Haha! You're a funny little pedo apologist, aren't ya?

Gee Doc let's just get something outta the way here what do you think the age of consent should be? Or do you think there's no need for any of that kinda stuff that might crimp your style?

I eagerly await your answer and your always profound and convincing logic for your stance on in the matter at hand

Pedo apologist? By asking to recognize that maybe it's not as simple as some are proposing, Doc is an apologist for all who commit such a crime?

By and large, my instinctive reaction to pedophilia is a tremendous desire to castrate the fucker.* But I know that's not realistic either.

*Not sure what the equivalent is for a female pedophile.

"By asking to recognize that maybe it's not as simple as some are proposing..."

He admitted to the sex with a child. That he's also guilty of fleeing prosecution is not debatable.

Other than the pretentious notion that his accomplishments have earned him special consideration, what makes this a less than simple case?

It's been thirty years. The victim says to let go. Has he reoffended? Is there a pattern? Jesus, there's all kinds of things that make many cases less than simple. It's why we have courts and lawyers.

Seems to me that 45 to 13 is inexcusable. It seems also possible that she looked more than 13 and pretended to be more than 13. I haven't read the records or any transcripts. Have you? 45 to 19 is also a large gap, but we recognize that 19 years old is an adult. I surely have seen some 13-year-olds who looked 19. Again, I'm not excusing, but to boil it down to "he admitted it" and "he fled" seems to me the very definition of oversimplifying. And to suggest that asking those questions makes one an apologist is absurd.

If you had the means to run after committing a crime that you figured you'd go down for, wouldn't you do it? I'm not saying he hasn't been wrong, and I'm not saying he shouldn't face trial. I'm saying that because one brings up questions doesn't mean one is an apologist.

But I know, holding two seemingly conflicting ideas in one's head is tough for some people.

And while we're at it, riddle me this. Is there no statute of limitations on rape (statutory or otherwise)? Is that state by state? (It should be, right, given that the age of consent varies by state.) What makes a crime so serious that it gets no statute of limitations? Is the reoffending question not a valid one, at least somewhere in the line of thought that leads to rehabilitation? For those recommending or hoping for jail time for Polanski, is it rehabilitation you want or punishment? Or is it the principle of the thing, that rich, famous, artistic people should not get away with it? For some who posted today, it seems that last is most important.

Right now, I think it'd be right for him to see trial. No matter what he has added to the history and artistry of film.

But those other questions interest me.

Is there no statute of limitations on rape (statutory or otherwise)?

I don't know if there is, considering his admission of guilt. It's possible there is, if he hadn't been detected prior to said statute expiring.

Or is it the principle of the thing, that rich, famous, artistic people should not get away with it?

My point is, he admitted guilt, then fled the country. The fact he was rich/famous has no bearing on it. He should face the law in connection to his flight, as well as the pedophilia, irregardless of what the victim says.

"It's been thirty years."

That he avoided trial for 30 years doesn't complicate anything. The fact that it will take all this time to get him to trial is the result of his 2nd crime and evidence of his lack of remorse.

"Has he reoffended?"

On the rape, who knows. He obviously felt that what he did was OK or he wouldn't have decided that he was above the law and fled. On fleeing prosecution, he's been continually offending for 30 years.

Should every pedophile get the benefit of living free for 30 years before we prosecute him for his crime? If they can stay clean, we just let it go. Everyone is entitled to one such indiscretion. If they rape another kid, well you can't make an omelette......

Seriously, what does the amount of time he's been able to avoid prosecution have to do with whether or not he's guilty? Why would the justice system give him credit for "good behavior" during a time period where he's continually avoiding prosecution for his original crime?

He's obviously guilty of two crimes. We have no right to prosecute anyone else if we don't prosecute him. Unequal justice is no justice. It really is that simple.

"My point is, he admitted guilt, then fled the country. The fact he was rich/famous has no bearing on it."

Correct. I never said it did. If I implied that, I certainly did not mean to. Actually, I thought I said outright that that should have no bearing and he should probably face trial. Maybe my words got the better of me.

"He should face the law in connection to his flight, as well as the pedophilia, irregardless of what the victim says."

Irregardless? Well, anyway... Again, I'd have to see the law on the books at the time, particularly in regard to "pedophilia." Pedophilia and statutory rape are not necessarily the same thing. But no, I don't think he should get away with it because he's famous or was able to flee. And I do think the other questions and issues I raised are worth exploring, though some in a more general sense than what should be done with Mr. Polanski.

My guess is that some sort of deal will be reached. I can't imagine the state of California (or almost any state) pushing to put Polanski in jail for this 30-year-old crime. For good or ill, I just can't imagine that. (And I might also wonder, What purpose would be served? See my questions in 21: "For those recommending or hoping for...")

And Sully, have you read all my words? I guess we disagree on the black and white of things. Life is complicated. Crime is complicated.

But even given that, "reoffended" had to do with the rape. Not with the fleeing. That's a separate count. Deal with it.

Again, "pedophile" and "statutory rapist" are not the same thing. One can argue the moral angle, for sure, but the legal definitions are not the same. We'd have to see Calif law at the time, or the written legal documents, to know which he is being accused of.

And I'm pretty sure I said something to the effect that he should face trial. But it's okay. Let's just cut his balls off and let him bleed to death in the street. (Oh, that's extreme--yeah, kinda like your leap to somehow thinking I suggested we let pedophiles run off and be free and give them time to reoffend before prosecuting...)

"I can't imagine the state of California (or almost any state) pushing to put Polanski in jail for this 30-year-old crime"

So California wants to send the message to criminals that if you can run for long enough, they'll let you off?

Why would the justice system in any state undermine itself in such a way?

"And I'm pretty sure I said something to the effect that he should face trial."

You did. But you also seem to think that the length of time he was guilty of fleeing prosecution entitles him to a lighter sentence. That is nonsensical.

So California wants to send the message to criminals that if you can run for long enough, they'll let you off?

Why should criminals need to run anywhere? They won't have to stay in jail.

California is going so broke they now want to let most of the criminals here out of jail early anyway -- whether they've previously run away or not most will hardly do any jail time.

"So California wants to send the message to criminals that if you can run for long enough, they'll let you off?
Why would the justice system in any state undermine itself in such a way?"

That wasn't at all my point. Damn, this is like arguing with myself. : )

Seriously, because they have current crimes to worry about, and LOTS of them.

""And I'm pretty sure I said something to the effect that he should face trial."
You did. But you also seem to think that the length of time he was guilty of fleeing prosecution entitles him to a lighter sentence. That is nonsensical."

Agreed. It is nonsensical. And "seem to think" would be the operative phrase there. That's not what I think at all. Go back to my posts if you really want to keep thinking about this. I don't really care if the guy goes to jail or not. I do think it would be rather stupid of a state to spend money on incarcerating a 76-year-old guy for something that the victim gives not a shit about anymore. It's not as if Roman Polanski is some sort of inspiration to criminals on the run. But now I"m ranging farther afield again.

I expect that if he had stood trial, even then, he wouldn't have seen much jail time. But of course, as in all things, I could be wrong. What he did was wrong--both things--but what's the point in pursuing it now and spending how much money? (Principle, yes, but other than that.)

Seriously, the discussion of this case is mostly intellectual exercise for me. But in general, I think that pedophiles and statutory rapists (different things, mentally and legally) should face very serious consequences if deemed guilty in a fair trial. Shit, even cons have a special dark place in their hearts for pedophiles (didja know there's special prison lingo for these criminals? "skinners").

What a pile of horseshit.

The Swiss Justice Ministry said he was being held under a 2005 international alert issued by the US government.
...
The victim at the centre of the case, Samantha Geimer, has previously asked for the charges to be dropped, saying the continued publication of details "causes harm to me, my husband and children".

Like Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman, the Bush Administration determined you had value as a propaganda tool. The facts and your personal feelings about what happened are irrelevant.

Surely the statute of limitations has run on this charge by now. It wasn't a murder.

Maybe there is no statute of limitations. Maybe he was screwed on statute of limitations once he was caught and charged. Someone earlier suggested that very thing--that statute of limitations only applies if you haven't been caught (at least, that's how I read what said poster said).

Pragmatist: Polanski pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor in 1977 and was sentenced to a prison psychiatric evaluation which he went thru. Then the court was then to consider said evaluation in determining his actual prison sentence but he fled the country to avoid the final sentencing. Since he had already pled guilty the statute of limitations does not apply matta fact just being charged within the time limit of the applicable statute of limitations even without final resolution should be enough that he can still be brought to justice.

He should serve whatever sentence he would have received for the original crime and an additional sentence for fleeing to avoid that sentence. There has to be a price to pay for such crimes no matter what one's status is.

Whether the victim now feels that Polanski deserves a break isn't an issue anymore... -- #10 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch

I agree, but would add that I don't think it should ever have been the issue, for a couple reasons. The psychology of some types of victims (c.f. Stockholm Syndrome) often predisposes them to unwarranted leniency.

Maybe more important is the idea that crimes are crimes against what we believe in as a society, not just against particular victims. No one ever waits for a murder victim to press charges, right?

Thanks for the info, Gimme.

Did folks read the details fo the article??

"Polanski, now 74, was charged in 1978 on several counts, including rape by use of drugs, but in a deal pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, a crime committed during a photo session with Geimer. "

So Polanski--during a photo shoot --drugged the girl--the 13 year old girl --and raped her.

I would like to know what the shrinks said in their report and what bearing, if any, it would have on the prison sentence.

The guy fled--he's guilty and needs to pay for his crime.

The victim is either too embarrassed ---so he should get away with rape--or can't remember and/or doesn't want to remember the rape.

Society has laws. He needs to pay the piper. The arrogance of this guy is beyond the pale.

Isn't there a statute of limitation or something....the guy is 76 years old now and it's been 30 years.
I wonder if justice would be served if we dragged him back here and tried him and put him in jail ? The victim, apparently, has no axe to grind, and feels it would be better to let sleeping dogs lie.
Wouldn't it be like whipping a dead horse ??

If we do force him into jail it will surely kill him. Didn't Mia Farrow and a lot of other actors and movie-people in America make a ton of money off this guy ?? His movies did sell; and he went through that awful Tate-LaBianca murder case where he lost his wife Sharon to a group of crazies.

Clearly, I am more interested in seeing them try and execute George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez, John Ashcroft, and Karen Tandy. I'm not for the death penalty, but in THEIR cases I would acquiesce that death would be the appropriate remedy.

#5 | POSTED BY RON_KARATE AT 2009-09-27 10:58 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Ron clearly has no idea about movies.

The Pianist, Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby.

Classic movies.

the 9th gate, while interesting, was kind of incoherent. Not his best effort, but i still have a copy.

I am in no way defending his actions, merely pointing out that owning his movies has nothing to do with what he did.

He had a cameo appearance in "The Magic Christian", too.

"The Magic Christian"

'We chose a Mercedes'

The part that stinks is when we issued the "international alert" in 2005.

If we were upset with him fleeing, we should have gone after him then. Not let him live at peace for thirty years and then suddenly make an issue of it.

Magic Christian:

Remember Yul Brynner's cameo? What a riot. I didn't realize it was him and I saw his name in the credits and watched it again.

"Remember Yul Brynner's cameo?"

Shit.

Now I have to go watch it again.
Fortunately I own a copy; Unfortunately it's on VHS.

Hell, I just watched The Scarlet Pimpernel again.
Sink me.

The reason the Euros couldn't extradite Polanski for 32 years is that sex with minors is normal in Old Europe.

The French are PO'd, I'll bet.

Polanski gave the 13 year old half a Quaalude and a glass of champagne definitely rape. But it wasn't cool of the judge to give him a break and offer him an easy way out if he admitted it and then after public outcry take it away. Also i kinda feel sorry for Polanski for the 9 years earlier crime of his 8 mos pregnant wife being killed my Manson's butcher Susan Atkins.He has had plenty of bad days in his life to go along with his good ones.
Peace
Darkstar

It's been thirty years. The victim says to let go.

No, she says he should come home and deal with the legal proceedings so the media will stop bringing up her abuse and making her life harder.

Polanski, showing his character, would never do that.

I can't believe anyone has any sympathy for him. He cajoled a 13-year-old girl into a "private photo shoot" so he could give her wine and Quaaludes and molest her.

There's no way he wasn't sure of her age. He knew her mother and asked her before the abuse whether she was a virgin.

Here's a picture of her when she was around the age the incident occured:

Ironic if RCADE's wishes are carried out Polanski could end up in a cell next to Charlie Manson. lol
peace
Darkstar

#5 | Posted by Ron_Karate at 2009-09-27 10:58 AM | Reply | Flag: an invitation to trade them

In other articles on this it mentions that he served time (42 days I think) and thought that was it, but the judge reneged on the plea bargain and he was informed he would spend more time in jail, so he fled.

Many here probably would have done the same. Judge not, and all that.

Anyway, it seems like he has paid for it (literally, in a civil suit) and the victim is satisfied...the time for some abstract sense of "justice" was in the past. At this point, it's one that got away. Not saying that it's right, but it's the way it is. And there are far more important criminals to be going after than this guy.

Not giving him a pass just because his movies are great, but if this had been tried properly at the time, I think the whole Sharon Tate/Manson thing might have resulted in some mitigating circumstances consideration in the sentencing. One can imagine he wasn't exactly in his right mind.

Again, not being an apologist, just saying we should be concerned with other, more relevant crimes/criminals.

We all know that the way the system works, if he has enough money left, he'll weasel out of it again.

In other articles on this it mentions that he served time (42 days I think) and thought that was it, but the judge reneged on the plea bargain and he was informed he would spend more time in jail, so he fled

Again, not being an apologist, just saying we should be concerned with other, more relevant crimes/criminals.

#50 | Posted by regime_change

The 42 days was for psychiatric evaluation to aide the judge in determining the actual sentencing/penalty

More relevant crimes? He admitted to giving drugs and alcohol to a minor child and having his way with her! That is a relevant crime doofus!!!

Scotch...

As I said, in the original article, it mentioned that both sides thought it was over, and the judge reneged.

Either way, I don't think that now, 30 years later, justice is being served. Probably the Swiss are trying to curry favor with the US after blowing up some investors' accounts (as suggested elsewhere).

And there are far more relevant crimes. Namely ones involving blood for oil. But, go ahead, get worked up about this one, by all means.

Have you seen Roman Polanski's new movie?

Close Encounters of the Third Grade.

"Not giving him a pass just because his movies are great, . . ."

Yes you are

Actually Booji, I wouldn't give a damn if he was sitting around like you, trying out illogical ripostes at 12am on the net. If you fucked a teenager 30 years ago and they fucked up the prosecution, you settled a civil suit and the victim said she's over it, I'd give your sorry ass a pass too. I wouldn't necessarily be happy about it, but I wouldn't dwell on it. I'd think you were reprehensible, and I'd snicker at you, but I'd think there were better targets for the mighty sword of Justice.

We invade a country for oil over lies about WMDs, slaughter thousands of innocents, fuck civil rights to hell here, and bankrupt our nation, but you go get worked up over a 30 year old sex crime; thinking beyond that would be too much of a stretch. Don't hurt yourself.

From a piece on the Polanski case by Gerald Posner in The Daily Beast this a.m. -

The decision by the Justice Department to have fted film director Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland on a fugitive warrant on Sunday caught the Los Angeles Superior Court blindsided. Dead cops, a victim who will almost certainly not cooperate, and chain of custody problems with the physical evidence has the court in a bind. Some are wondering whether the district attorney might have to dismiss the case if Polanski is extradited to the United States....

[In January 2008] released an award-winning documentary about the case, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, which revealed judicial misconduct between one of the district attorneys and the original trial judge. The publicity-driven judge, who had presided over Elvis Presley's divorce and Marlon Brando's child custody battle, ignored the probation report and the plea agreement so he would not seem "soft" on the case. Instead, he opened up the door to a jail sentence for Polanski, prompting the director to flee the country.

The misconduct presented in the film was so well documented that it prompted Polanski's defense attorney, Douglas Dalton, and the trial prosecutor, Roger Gunson, to issue a joint statement condemning the legal improprieties and to say justice had not been served. But the judge now responsible for the case has implied while there was misconduct, there is a great reluctance to be seen as rewarding Polanski for fleeing the country....

Surely the statute of limitations has run on this charge by now. It wasn't a murder.

#31 | Posted by CalifChris

You're right...it wasn't murder... it was statutory rape. She was 13.

Got a skeleton in your closet too you're worried about still getting nailed for ?

A 45 year old man screwing a 13 year old girl and people now saying "Let it pass".

Fucking amazing.

"I don't really care if the guy goes to jail or not. I do think it would be rather stupid of a state to spend money on incarcerating a 76-year-old guy for something that the victim gives not a shit about anymore. It's not as if Roman Polanski is some sort of inspiration to criminals on the run. But now I"m ranging farther afield again."

I get that but I really do believe the principle is important. Not sending him to jail would be saying "If you run from us successfully for a long enough time, you will get off lighter." I don't think this would make all criminals run - but I do think it would inspire some of the wealthier ones to consider it.

A 45 year old man screwing a 13 year old girl and people now saying "Let it pass".

Fucking amazing.

#58 | Posted by USATrueandBlue7 at 2009-09-28 09:36 AM |

The victim herself is saying "Let it pass".

This is an interesting thread. It's populated by the same types of people who claim that Ted Kennedy did enough good deeds during the ensuing time he should have been in prison, that we need to forget what happened. A man had sex with a 13 year old girl, then fled the country.

Pragmatist claims that he knows of 13 year old girls who looked 19; I call BS. My daughter's 13, and so are all her friends. Not one of them looks like they're of legal age. And even so, you still should ask, just to make sure, before you get her to spread her legs for you.

"It's been 30 years." "The victim says she wants to move on." "California doesn't have the prison space anyhow." "Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman . . " whatever the hell that was about.

Godalmighty. 13 years old. You're sick bastards.

"Pragmatist claims that he knows of 13 year old girls who looked 19; I call BS. My daughter's 13, and so are all her friends. Not one of them looks like they're of legal age. And even so, you still should ask, just to make sure, before you get her to spread her legs for you."

I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm just saying that some females do look older. You can call BS all you want. Maybe you don't live in the world I do; maybe you haven't seen the people I've seen. I have no problem with that, but just 'cause you don't or haven't doesn't mean you get to accuse me of lying.

And yes, sex with a 13yo is sick. And this was more than sex; it was rape. Which I didn't know till Rcade 'splained me.

I wasn't offering apology for this guy; I was asking some interesting questions. Oh, well.

This asshole has been living an elitist life style in France sipping French wine and hob-knobbing with rich effluent stuck up people who at ther end of the day really do believe they are better than and deserve more than 98% of the rest of the human race.

It is very similar to the Elitist Republicans in this country who feel they deserve better health care and the best of what this contry has to offer because they have money whether they earned it or their Daddies earned it and stuck a silver spoon it their mouths.

Here is the bottom line. This sorry fuck screwed a 13 year old girl when he was 45 years old and has never spent a day in jail for it or been punished in any manner for the exact same crime that multiple people are now sitting in prisons for in this country. (On average 3-10 years depending on the circumstances) He ran from the law because he had money and knew people. He committed a serious crime and deserves nothing but what the law has perscribed for him. If he was a man, he would have taken his punishment but he nothing but a cowardly pussy.

He is an low life asshole and he will die an asshole.

I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm just saying that some females do look older. You can call BS all you want. Maybe you don't live in the world I do; maybe you haven't seen the people I've seen. I have no problem with that, but just 'cause you don't or haven't doesn't mean you get to accuse me of lying.
* * * *

Name me one famous person who, at age 13, looked 19.

Just one.

The victim herself is saying "Let it pass".

#60 | Posted by jerrytarkanian

What the victim is saying has no bearing on anything. The law is the law. This piece of shit broke the law.

There is no provision in any statatory rape law that say's ... If the victim say's... "Let it Pass"... the violator goes free.

The forgiveness of a victim against his perpetrator, although a great quality, has no bearing on the application of law or its minimum required punishment under that law.

Tell me libbies: had you been on the jury, and you knew that Polanski was going to flee the country for 30 years, would you have let him off?

"had you been on the jury"

What jury was that?

Fine. Judge, then. You're saying that, in retrospect, he shouldn't have to serve his sentence after all. It's like Sully says--dodge the law long enough, and even a sex crime against a 13-year-old girl would be excused away by the libbies.

I wonder: had he devoted his post-child-rape life to, say, developing oil fields--would the libbies be as forgiving? What if he wrote books critical of Carter, Clinton, and Obama--would you be saying that his life should be judged by the quality and breadth of his work, rather than by one night, 30 years back?

"You're saying that, in retrospect, he shouldn't have to serve his sentence after all."

You got all that out of "What jury was that?"

In addition to mastering the Ouija board, do you by any chance dowse?

Doc, should Polanski serve his sentence, or not.

Let me get this straight. The man boozed up and drugged a thirteen year old girl, performed oral sex on her against her will, then raped and then anally raped her and people want to let him go free because he's been on the run so long?????

try reading the account of what happened, here is a link to an overview with links to the victims testimony.

"Doc, should Polanski serve his sentence, or not."

Personally, I think if the victim has no problem with Polanski walking free -- she reached a settlement with him -- I've no problem with it. However, now that's he seems to have gotten himself ensnared in the possibility of being exposed to the California legal system again, that system should be allowed to work through to whatever conclusion comes about. I would hope the system is merciful, given the circumstances that the woman (then a girl) feels she's gotten herself squared away, the guy's now in his 70s, and the crime occurred more than three decades ago.

So . . . is that a yes or a no? That if a check comes in the mail to the victim, we need to take that into account? That, and the fact that his old age has been spent living in luxury, and should also now be taken into account?

I guess that's what the Kerrybots called "nuance". You're a judge, and in walks Polanski, two weeks from now. What sentence do you give him?

#70

Absolutely!!

"So . . . is that a yes or a no?"

I'll try and clear this up for you: I personally don't give a damn whether Polanski goes to jail or not. He doesn't go, I'm fine with it. He goes, well, that's the way the system works. You'll notice that I said the system must be allowed to work its way through. I also said I believed he should be cut some slack since (a) he settled with the woman; (b) he's a septaugenarian; and (c) the crime took place more than three decades ago.

"You're a judge, and in walks Polanski, two weeks from now. What sentence do you give him?"

I'm going to want to have more information (see the Posner reference at #57 above, especially this: allegations of "judicial misconduct between one of the district attorneys and the original trial judge. The publicity-driven judge, who had presided over Elvis Presley's divorce and Marlon Brando's child custody battle, ignored the probation report and the plea agreement so he would not seem "soft" on the case. Instead, he opened up the door to a jail sentence for Polanski, prompting the director to flee the country.")

My guess is, if Polanski spends any time in jail -- highly problematic -- it won't be more than a few months.

The statute of limitations is limited to raising the charge of a crime, not when a sentence is carried out or completed.

The crime was discovered and charged within the statute. To me, this is an ongoing court case that hasn't been completed yet. The court should also consider sanctioning him for delaying the court and pay costs.

If a criminal breaks the law, is sentenced to 30 years in prison, and breaks out of the jail after 2 years and is on the lam for 5 years, is there 23 years left on the sentence when he gets caught? I don't think so. There is no statute of limitation on completing a sentence.

RIR, what does famous people have to do with it? I was talking about _my_ experience, which clearly is different from yours.

I don't think Polanski's age should be a mitigating factor in how this crime is treated. The reason he's dealing with this in his 70s is because he chose not to come back to the U.S. in his 40s, 50s or 60s. He has no one else to blame.

"The reason he's dealing with this in his 70s is because he chose not to come back to the U.S. in his 40s, 50s or 60s. He has no one else to blame."

Exactly. And the reason he is being punished 30 years after the fact is the result of another crime.

And I'm having a very hard time seeing how his ability to avoid justice for 30 years somehow ends up being a mitigating factor in his favor. He's being punished 30 years after the fact because he cheated justice.

I very strongly suspect that most of his defenders would do a complete 180 on their stance in this situation if the only thing to change in this case was that Polanski is a businessman.

RIR, what does famous people have to do with it? I was talking about _my_ experience, which clearly is different from yours.

#77 | Posted by pragmatist
* * * *

A famous person would give us a common frame of reference. Obviously your saying a girl you know in your neighborhood who is 13 but looks 19 doesn't help my disbelief that such people don't really exist. But you can draw from hundreds of actresses, singers, and athletes with pictures all over the web, to convince me otherwise.

I have four children, ranging from 13 to 18. Their friends are about their same age, like most kids. They've lived with me in Florida, Hawaii, Europe, California, Georgia, Alabama, Ohio, and now in Colorado. Never seen a 13 year old girl--or boy--who could pass for 19. It's a trifling point; and rape is rape whether the kid is 13 or 19 or anywhere in between, and just because the guy can buy a plane ticket doesn't mean he shouldn't be hauled off to prison.

#56: Actually Booji, I wouldn't give a damn if he was sitting around like you, trying out illogical ripostes at 12am on the net. If you fucked a teenager 30 years ago and they fucked up the prosecution, you settled a civil suit and the victim said she's over it, I'd give your sorry ass a pass too. I wouldn't necessarily be happy about it, but I wouldn't dwell on it. I'd think you were reprehensible, and I'd snicker at you, but I'd think there were better targets for the mighty sword of Justice.

We invade a country for oil over lies about WMDs, slaughter thousands of innocents, fuck civil rights to hell here, and bankrupt our nation, but you go get worked up over a 30 year old sex crime; thinking beyond that would be too much of a stretch. Don't hurt yourself.

Flag: King of moral relativism: All sins of everyone else are forgiven when compared to the evil bush empire

Wow. Everyone get that?

Clean up your spittle now.

Anyway its just the LA prosecutor who is trying to close this case to the satisfaction of his constituents. Its not like LA invaded Orange County for oil.

"and rape is rape whether the kid is 13 or 19 or anywhere in between, and just because the guy can buy a plane ticket doesn't mean he shouldn't be hauled off to prison."

I completely agree. See the documentary Merchants of Cool for 13 and 14yo girls who look 18 or 19. Other than that, I have nothing to offer you. And I don't feel I have to. I talked about what _I have_ seen. I did not intend to extrapolate beyond that.

And again, I did not know the details till Rcade posted them.

I still find my other questions interesting in a general sense, not specific to this case.

Have a good day.

Fair enough Prag. Enjoy your afternoon.

Thank you. You, too.

Ill Use Atheists logic that they apply to Christians. Literal Evolution. If the 13 year old is able to reproduce then it shouldn't against nature for that person to engage in sexual activity. Nature is telling you they can have children. Therefore it is natural and should be embraced not rejected. Unless evolution is only being "symbolic" allowing a 13 year old the ability to reproduce.
I believe 18 is legal age and would never consider a partner below that age. However if you are a believer in evolution (literally or absolutely) you have to say you have modified your thinking due to Judea o Christian influence on the laws.
Peace
Darkstar

I also said I believed he should be cut some slack since (a) he settled with the woman; (b) he's a septaugenarian; and (c) the crime took place more than three decades ago. -- #75 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Just curious: do you feel the same way about participants in the Holocaust?

Like Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman, the Bush Administration determined you had value as a propaganda tool. The facts and your personal feelings about what happened are irrelevant.

#30 | Posted by snoofy

at last we git to weigh this vastly important psyche crime to what now r modern morals versus ignoring Gaza crimes for eternity (too?) via Obama's deference to the wantabe 'holocaust' descendants ~ another eternal crime...knowing no cosmic justice in gnostic literature, I'm sure ~ ever!

Name me one famous person who, at age 13, looked 19.

Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver.

It's truly amazing that some would want Polanski to have any kind of a pass on this. He raped a 13 year old girl after drugging her and giving her alcohol.

He plead guilty, and the victim's sentiment on this is of no consequence. He fled, and now has to face the consequences of his actions. Although the rape took place 30 years ago, he has engaged to this day in ongoing contempt for US law by having fled, and never voluntarily coming back.

This seems pretty black and white, and I'm kind of shocked at what I'm reading on this thread.

This seems pretty black and white, and I'm kind of shocked at what I'm reading on this thread.

#91 | Posted by somoco

I would be, too, but where's Cheney at the moment...oh, he didn't confess to torturing anyone's rosebud...wait ~ didn't he, too?

oh yes, everyone's rosebud forgave him

Bani, if he's convicted of a crime and flees the country, the same would hold for him.

And, I view the raping of a 13 year old as being very different than authorizing the waterboarding of 3 terrorist douche bags.

But, thanks for trying to inject politics in trying to protect Mr. Polanski, it puts you in some perspective.

At least Polandski is a Warsaw ghetto survivor ~ which doesn't excuse him, but Cheney...G-d has a plan, I'm sure, for him in some Data bank somewhere in the Matrix:>)

"....very different than authorizing the waterboarding of 3 terrorist"

ff

"...it puts you in some perspective."

likewise:>)LOL

Then you can rest easy, let go of your rage, and put it in God's hands.

"...it puts you in some perspective."

That Cheney better not fly to Switzerland while Obama's Prez?

Then you can rest easy, let go of your rage, and put it in God's hands.

#96 | Posted by somoco

what rage?

u got the mirror on again ur monitor?

mine is flashing ultramarine

Bani,
you got some kind of major fucking obsession going on here. I don't care what the thread is, it all comes back to Cheney, Bush WMD. Do you masturbate to his poster on your bathroom wall??

u got the mirror on again ur monitor?

The mirror is on the desk... explains the "rage".

The mirror is on the desk... explains the "rage".

#101 | Posted by ZombieHunter

sorry cheap shot artist ~ no mirror on a desk ~ sweetie...

Bani,
you got some kind of major fucking obsession going on here. I don't care what the thread is, it all comes back to Cheney, Bush WMD. Do you masturbate to his poster on your bathroom wall??

#100 | Posted by boojiboy

where have u bin? check out below:>)

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Flu Vaccine Exposed

Dr. Mercola
September 26 2009 | 70,194 views
Studies show that flu vaccines are unsafe and ineffective. This presentation by the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute includes a visual depiction of flu vaccine production -- how the flu vaccine is made and what it contains.
read more

Posted by Bani at 03:50 PM | 32 COMMENTS | permalink

Greenwald: Welcome to Bush's Third Term

Glenn Greenwald: When it comes to uprooting ("changing") the Bush/Cheney approach to Terrorism and civil liberties -- the issue which generated as much opposition to the last presidency as anything else -- the Obama administration has proven rather conclusively that tiny and cosmetic adjustments are the most it is willing to do. They love announcing new policies that cast the appearance of change but which have no effect whatsoever on presidential powers.
read more

Posted by Bani at 01:32 PM | 18 COMMENTS

this post could appy here, too...

High School Coach Takes Players to Baptist Revival

It is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Americans have tolerated diverse political opinions since this nation began.

#76 | Posted by JOE at 2009-09-28 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag

Amazing that the people who'd jug this septuagenarian forever for a 32-year-old crime against one person who has forgiven him don't push for the trial and prosecution of Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Ashy, who are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths this century. herm

#104 | Posted by herm

Where do you get this idea? There's no doubt in my mind that Bush and several of his top advisors should be tried for war crimes.

"I view raping a 13 year old as different (from) waterboarding 3 terrorist douche bags."

Which do you feel is worse? How about if they're not douche bags? herm

I understand how this young lady's feelings could get mixed. If, when this occurred it was a "love" thing in her mind, then she is not going to see him as the bad guy. It's hard for me to clamor for him to be punished, if she is not calling for it. With respect to her opinion, I would still press for a case and some punishment.

LM

But I know, holding two seemingly conflicting ideas in one's head is tough for some people.

#20 | Posted by pragmatist
--------------------------
There aren't any more questions to be asked. 1. He pled guilty. 2. He was sentenced 3. He ran like a little bitch to France because he knew he wouldn't be extradited back. However, from what I remember, the judge was being a butthead so maybe he does have a case against the judge. However, you can't argue anything while your living in France and refusing to come back and take care of your legal problems. He has yet to pay his debt to society 30 years ago. In my opinion the death penalty would ensure that we don't have a repeat offender, only a dead one.

Lonnie

In my opinion the death penalty would ensure that we don't have a repeat offender, only a dead one.

Lonnie

idiot talk