Roman Polanski taken into custody - Page 3

That's why we have an appeals system. If there was any malfeasance whatsoever on the part of the prosecutor or judge, there is no way it would be legally enforcable.

I understand why Polanski fled insomuch as I understand that criminals don't want to go to jail. But my response to him is the same as it would be to anyone who commits a crime and then fears the consequences: Too fucking bad.

I worked for criminal defense law firm, not as an attorney. But cases would be discussed and the way the system "works" would enter into it. I can't imagine any of those attorneys agreeing with Polanski fleeing, no matter what treatment the judge was giving him.

Meanwhile, the AP pulled quite the boner in reporting this:

From my admittedly murky understanding of the Criminal Justice system, and even murkier understanding of California's specifically, no plea bargain is guaranteed from a legal perspective. It's basically a "strong suggestion" to the sentencing authority (be it judge or jury) but it's not legally required that it be carried out...the sentencing authority can change it at their discretion.

If the judge imposed a cruel and unusual punishment, then Polanski could have appealed. Even if a stiff sentence was imposed, I don't think he could have been denied parole (again, I could be wrong on that) and probably would have gotten it at the earliest opportunity. If the sentence didn't get overturned in appeals. Heck, if Polanski's lawyers didn't know that the judge going apeshit on them was a possibility, he probably could've gotten an appeal granted based on their incompetence alone. (Though again, I'm far from a lawyer so I could be completely mistaken about all this legal stuff).

Maybe the judge was trying to make an example, or was trying to screw him over, or whatever, but none of that should excuse Polanski fleeing the system, even if we might understand why he would do it.

I notice there's not much outcry about the fact that Plaxico Burress is serving two years in jail for shooting himself in the leg. Granted, the sentence is actually for having an unlicensed firearm (which is still harsh, the gun had a license that Burress had just failed to renew). Most people would serve PBJ at the least, 6 months at the most, but Burress is serving hard time for a crime where the only victim was himself.

Polanski, on the other hand, served no hard time for a crime that was in no way victimless. It's interesting how much celebrity justice has changed in 30 years. Burress asked for a plea bargain that most judges would have granted, but to show that the law is not soft on celebrity, the judge nailed him. Polanski, on the other hand, has been able to play loopholes for 30 years.

I'm all for Burress not having such a harsh sentence. Although, there is still the issue of "why in the fuck do you need a gun at a nightclub?! Unless of course, you want to be fully prepared to kill someone while you're getting your crunk on." You could make an argument that makes him quite dangerous (drunk + gun). And if he's prone to stupid accidents, who's to say that his leg couldn't have very easily turned into some poor, innocent bystander just out trying to enjoy themselves? Two years is probably a bit much though if you're going by what happened vs. what could've happened.

He's a famous guy with a LOT of money out in a club. The mistake he made was having a loaded (and unlicensed) handgun in his pants, when instead he should have had a bodyguard nearby. Plax made a mistake, no doubt, but the reason that case boggles my mind is that he's doing two years hard time while Donte Stallworth killed a guy drunk driving and served 24 days. Of course, it was two different states, and the Stallworth sentencing was prior to the Burress sentencing, and got a LOT of negative press.

Anyway, derail aside, it's just funny to me that a lot of people throw out "B b b but Chinatown!!" (not on chud, actually, but a lot of other places around the web) after Polanksi rapes a kid, but Burress gets nailed and there's a lot of self righteous applause. I guess making a movie > playing football when it comes to get out of jail free cards. Let me make it clear, before people get bent out of shape, I'm not indicting anyone in this thread of saying Polanski should have gotten away with it, but I'm hearing it a lot in other places.

That's because Plaxico is athletic, not artistic. Ergo, he can rot.

A judge who is playing politics with sentencing is a dick, regardless of the identity of the defendant.

The thing with Polanski is that, unless the offense involved another criminal activity such as kidnapping, battery, intent to kill or something else, people who commit non-violent sexual offenses get light sentences. Argue against that all you want, but it's what happens. Polanski had answered to the charges and worked out a plea deal in good faith and the judge decided he was going to hand down a sentence way outside the norm due entirely to who the defendant was and the political gain such a move would garner for him. It's a miscarriage of justice and I think Polanski's decision to flee given the way he had been portrayed in the media since the Tate murder is understandable.

Personally, I don't condone fleeing. How you stand up against an injustice is facing the injustice head on and bringing as much attention to it as possible, win or lose. Polanski made a lot of bad decisions regarding the case. I just think his life experience and its effects on his mental state should be a consideration when considering those bad decisions.

I've seen it elsewhere on the web, but on this forum I don't think anyone is calling for torches and pitchforks. Just that all is considered in rendering a fair decision.

Harvey Weinstein supports kiddie rapers
I can't see too many American actors and directors getting behind this.

Yeah, except that dude who made POWDER.

I guess we can't have a Polanski thread without Salva popping up. Not a judgment, just an observation.

Salva's problem is not being an auteur with an impressive cinematic legacy.

In all fairness to Salva (The only time I'll utter that sentence) he knew what he did and did his time.

People keep citing 'Wanted and Desired' as if it somehow exonerates Polanski. I think that would be a remarkably effective doc, if not for the fact that Polanski anally raped a 13 year old girl. He did his crime. Yes the judge was overzealous and yes Polanski got messed around...but he raped a 13 year old girl. In it's own way it's a little sickening how that film somehow tries making Polanski the innocent victim.

For anyone that defends Polanski, how can you defend this;

You can read the whole transcript at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...skicover1.html

On the other hand...does prosecuting Polanski NOW actually serve a purpose? The victim wants it dropped (Though it doesn't excuse anything) and what exact punishment should Polanski serve?

Salva didn't flee the country though.

You know how you deal with miscarriages of justice? By filing an appeal. After that, assuming any meaningful relief is denied by the state appeals courts, you can file habeas petitions with either federal or state courts and start anew. After that, you can make appeals to the executive for clemency.

We do this all the time.

You know what is the best way to avoid unfortunate encounters with the criminal justice system? By not committing crimes, like having sex with drugged 13 year-olds.

Dick in thu butt.

He said punishment not pleasure.

He should get a punishment within the range of the laws that apply to the drugging and raping of a 13 year old girl. That's why we have sentencing laws.

As for why prosecuting someone 31 years after the fact has a purpose, that's more of a philosophical question than one regarding Polanski. There's a reason why crimes like murder and rape often have no statute of limitations. I imagine there is book after book discussing the rationale.

Maybe someone who works in corrections could shed light on this, but is there any chance Polanski could get shipped over to the State Penitentiary at Corcoran? That would be wild. Forced to do time in the same institution as the killer of your wife and unborn child. A collision course 40 years in the making. Made even worse by the sadistic warden who forces the two men to battle it out in the underground prison fighting arena, dubbed by inmates as "The Pit."

I should have made my point better. Aside from the philosophical debate, how would Polanski now be prosecuted? Will there be a new trial? Will everyone have to be re interviewed or will they just basically carry on from where they left off? Couldn't the victim now change her story and Polanski get off scott free?

Also, it's not technically 'rape' is it? I thought it was downgraded to "Unlawful sex with a minor"? Would Polanski still be charged for that or will they now charge him with rape?

Today non-violent sex offenders may end up with light sentences (although I bristle at that notion) but they are branded, stigmatized and end up living underneath interstate overpasses apparently.

I have a brilliant idea for his punishment: banishment from the United State and a substantial fine donated to women's shelters and organizations that raise awareness and help support victims of rape.

It's my understanding the film was trying to shed light on the events of the fateful evening, and explain why Polanski left...because that was on people's minds all these years, and no one knew exactly what had really happened. I don't see how any reasonably minded person can make the conclusion you just made after watching it. If anything, the film pronounces Polanski's disturbed state of mind and his need for psychiatric help, which is the root cause of his problem (and the problem of most violent offenders), something ignored in our machiavellian justice system.

Clinton swoops in, last minute.

Sweeps him off his feet and carries him into his private jet, The Bodyguard style slow motion carry.

They make love as the jet leaves the country.


The END

If I'm not mistaken, there is no 'retrial' as he plead guilty 30+ years ago. It's kind of a do not pass go, do not get a trial and go straight to jail type deal. The only question is for how long...(sentancing) then of course there is the little matter of fleeing in the first place, that usually adds to the years. Of course he can then have his appeals hearing...

Pretty much sums up the cultural divide between Europe and the US on this case;

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...926508,00.html

Everything I've ever learned about the unflinchingly regulation-based French legal system is a lie! Damn you, Les Miserables!!!

Are we talking phone book suits of armor? If so, I am on board with this plan.

"Well, well, Roman. One night many years ago I was a guest in your home. Now you're in MINE!!!"

Throw in Phillip Rhee and we have all the necessary elements for Best of the Best 5: Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.

Yes and each combatant gets one shiv made from the piece of prison furniture of their choice.

I can see the trailer now. Jeremy Davies as Manson, please.

"I'm gonna kill you, Manson!"

"Kill me, Roman? You can't kill me. You need me. I know every inch of this facility and I'm busting out. If you can put the past behind you I'll take you with me. It'll be you, me, and Sirhan Sirhan makes three."

I'm sure he'd be up for a second go-round

Can the whole thing be told in flashback by a rhyming Phil Spector?

Polanski underwent a 42-day period of psychiatric evaluation and was found fit to face sentencing. Maybe he wasn't given enough tearful hugs during this evaluation, but it certainly can't be argued Polanski's state of mind was not considered.

???

By the same system that was going to fuck him over in the sentencing.

How is not allowing him to plead to a much, much lesser crime than the one he apparently committed, and essentially letting him walk out with time served for drugging and raping a 13 year old girl, equated with "fucking him over?" If anything, the Judge managed to come to his senses before it was too goddamned late.

And before any criminal Defendant takes a plea, it is normally explained to them by the judge in open court, and typically by their attorney as well, the ramifications of pleading guilty. Typically, it includes a warning that the judge is free to impose the sentence they see fit, and that the district attorney can only recommend a term to the judge. If Polanski didn't like the risk he was exposed to in pleading guilty, he shouldn't have pled guilty.

I don't have a hard opinion on this either way (I don't see myself outraged by whatever result), but it's a fascinating case in its self-recursiveness. He did violate that girl, he did get screwed by a judge who helped/was influenced by the circus atmosphere, he did unlawfully flee. But the latter two wouldn't have happened if he weren't also a celebrated and popular filmmaker (okay, probably all three), the very reason (plus time) some want leniency or a dismissal. It's oddly circular. Can't really make comparisons to Joe the Raping Junior High Janitor, because after the arrest Polanksi's is unique in nearly all aspects.

Molt, call that flick DIRECTOR'S CUT and get the film rolling.

For everyone claiming Polanski was somehow mistreated by the legal system: Please provide specifics. Because as I see it, Polanski only suspected he would be treated unfairly and then fled the country to avoid this before it could happen.

Joe the Raping Junior High Janitor wouldn't have been given the same considerations that Polanski got and would have fled in all likelihood given the same means that Roman had at his disposal. Polanski is only unique in that he fled the consequences of his actions and has been able to maintain the same level of lifestyle, celebrity and artistic achievement as before.

People should really stop portraying Polanski has some persecuted victim of an unjust legal system or an innocent man on the run. It's not as if this was a consensual affair between an older man and a younger girl. It can't be dismissed as a cultural difference or an indiscretion based on poor judgement. This involved the drugging and forcible rape of a 13 year old girl. That doesn't take away from his work or anything he's accomplished artistically since then but it does say to me that justice wasn't really served.

This is pretty fucking 0_o, from the sweeping generalizations on both european and american attitudes alike (one statement from the french minister of culture and a few of Polanski's actor buddies = european popular opinion? And "but he made CHINATOWN!" and accusations of the trial being fishy never pop up in US-centric discussions discussions of the topic, of course...), down to the very bizarre choice of stories to link (a story on how the french are having more sex??). Hang around long enough in any random european countrie's pubs and I'm sure you'll find that 1- hatred of sexual predators and 2- intense dislike of celebrities for "getting away" with stuff regular people couldn't are pretty much always on the menu.

Now that Polanski is finally behind bars, hopefully the LA district attorneys office can see what they can do to reopen the John Landis investigation.

Playing Devil's Advocate regarding this whole "but he made Chinatown" thing: It's been a while since I saw the documentary, but the early stages make it clear that this kind of behavior was accepted (which doesn't make it okay) among Polanski's circle of buddies. Warren Beatty and Robert Evans are two of the most notorious pussy-hounds in Hollywood history, and close with Polanski. The whole thing went down at Jack Nicholson's house.

Therefore, it's safe to say that these guys could have and probably did engage/d in similar behavior as Polanski. I seem to even recall Evans bragging about it, or hinting at it, in his book/movie. This behavior seems to have been common place back then, but Polanski was the only guy who was "dumb enough" to get caught.

Again, I'm not excusing what Polanski did, I'm just wondering if it's as hard to watch Reds or Bonnie and Clyde or Five Easy Pieces or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or any one of the films Evans produced for Paramount for those in the thread who have a problem watching Polanski's movies.

(You can also point to the recent Mackenzie Phillips thread, which features that deeply creepy quote from Mick Jagger, who from all accounts shares similar tastes in young girls.)

That's not playing Devil's Advocate, that's nonsense.

Except for Jagger, who is a scumbag.

Jagger is a scumbag, but does that mean we should automatically discount the work of the Rolling Stones?

Look, I don't know how much more clear I can make it that I think what Polanski did was not okay and he broke the law by fleeing, but the documentary and the case brings up a lot of issues from a time in Hollywood that's celebrated, but whose reality it seems like a lot of people want to forget.

For that matter, what about this McMartin thing I keep hearing about?

Yeah, but wasn't Phillips 18 when Jagger did that?

And, I know it's odd by our standards, but even 16 is almost worlds away from 13. Hell, 16 is the age of consent in New Zealand, isn't it?


I just can't wrap my head around that though. ESPECIALLY if you have the sort of power that could aide a real pussy-hound like Beatty or Evans. Why go through the hassle of fucking girls under 18? Shit, I'm 28, and I wouldn't fuck most 18 year olds. There's just something... off about the whole thing. They might be legal, but they come off as sooooooooooooo young. I can't imagine what it takes to do that to a 13 year old. That Roman's got some creep to him, to turn a phrase from my man D'Angelo down at the towers.

I've known a lot of "pussy hounds". I've known older men who dig younger women. I've never known one who has drugged and raped one though.