CNN Whitewash
CNN seems to think Polanski deserves a break too. Just look at the opening paragraph on their story:
(CNN) — The events of a single afternoon when she was 13 years old have haunted Samantha Geimer her entire life. A famous movie director allegedly gave her champagne and had sex with her.
There’s no god damned “allegedly” involved here: he admitted it.
PUT HIS ASS IN JAIL.
Morality, People | Mr. Bingley | 
September 29, 2009 11:00 am
Subscribe
Not only that but they did not have sex. He drugged her and she said no then forced himself on her. That is called rape.
Polanski is a sick rapist and should rot in jail.
Just disgusting. I can only hope he ends up in general population in a nice urban prison. He’s sure to get his just desserts there.
CNN through the years:
“Elvis Allegedly Dead”
“Hindenburg Allegedly Explodes”
“Cable News Network Allegedly Founded, Rumored to Report News”
I keep coming back to this thought: “If he were Joe Noneck from Boring, Oregon, would people be clamoring for his release?”
Hell no – very likely some of the same people who are claiming this guy should be let go would be standing the hypothetical Joe up in front of a firing squad.
Polanski’s case was handled like many other such cases. It was the court’s responsibility to determine if he was a sexual predator and likely to commit the same offense again. It was for that reason that Polanski was twice sent to Chino for an intense psychological evaluation over a period of 3 months. In both of those of instances, therapists concluded that Polanski was not a predator and they recommended against a prison term.
In his plea bargain, which the PROSECUTOR recommended, Polanski was to be put on probation and released. Then, when the prosecutor learned that the judge was going to renege on this plea bargain for reasons which had nothing to do with the recommendations from Chino, he alerted Polanski’s attorney. Fearing that he would be sent to jail for more than a decade after the judge had agreed to the plea bargain, Polanski decided to flee the country.
Polanski always took responsibility for what he did and pleaded guilty in court. What he didn’t expect was a rogue judge who was being influenced by an eager prosecutor who had not even been involved in the case. Roman Polanski did a despicable act that night, and he knows it. The man was clearly still suffering from the psychological trauma of his wife’s brutal murder, and his judgment was grossly impaired. This is not an excuse, but it does explain why this behavior suddenly emerged from out of now where in a man who had never been involved in any similar incidents. That is why the therapists at Chino recommended probation. As terrible as his act was, Polanski was NOT a sexual predator and, therefore, deemed not a danger to society.
Certainly, the last 30 years of Polanski’s life have borne that out. Just because Polanski is a world-famous, Academy Award-winning director who survived the Nazi occupation by escaping the Krakow Ghetto in 1943, does not mean he should receive better treatment. HOWEVER, it also means that he should not receive worse judgment than other offenders of this type. This is a man whose parents died in concentration camps and whose pregnant wife was stabbed to death by the Manson family. This is also a man who has been repeatedly forgiven by his sole victim, who now feels more victimized by the District Attorney of Los Angeles than by Polanski himself.
How many pounds of flesh will it take to satisfy this alleged thirst for “justice”?
To JohnRJ08:
If there is any evidence of DA misconduct, Polanski should come back and fight it in court.
Is he receiving any worse treatment? Name one fugitive who received better treatment.
It’s interesting you brought up his parents. Why that has anything to do this? If you let victims of any crime get a settlement and wait for 30 years, I bet some of them will forgive the perpetrator. So what?
Bring that sniveling coward back here in shackels and Make him face the people Humilate him, put him through the HELL that, that young child must of gone through to cope with such a horrible fate. Sure she may say she is over it, but the mind has ways of protecting the body and one day the full force of the even will come down on that little girl and crush her, her mind will not allow her to remember it.
Regardless of anything else he has accomplished in his life and whatever troubles he was going through he still had sex with a 13 year old girl. Nothing Changes that FACT. He then fled back to France knowing that they would not send him back. So not only did he have sex with a 13 year old but he ran away as soon as he realized it wasn’t going well for him. Those are two very serious CRIMES! It doesn’t matter if the 13 year old girl he drugged and had sex with requests dismissal of the case either, he still did it. Thats like saying i could rape and try to kill a girl but if later she forgives me and says that its all good that i would be free.
Common sense people…
These are the FACTS:
Roman Polanski Drugged and Raped a 13 year old Girl
Roman Polanski Fled to a different country after the Rape
Time Passed does not forgive a CRIME.
They have been Jailing NAZIs who murdered Jews in Concentration camps long after the crimes. This isn’t murder but it doesn’t change what happened.
Wake UP he deserves to be sentanced like he should have in the 70’s
Charlie
All of the facts about his life do not change his single action. He had sex with a thirteen year old girl. Not only this, but he RAPED her. I’m still trying to understand how he managed to get a plea bargain out of a case when he should’ve gone to jail for a long time.
The man has committed a crime, and in this particular type of crime, there should be no plea bargain. Sexual predators have the highest rate of recidivism. I have little doubt that he has contemplated such acts again, if he has not acted upon them.
At the same time, he is getting a pass because of his powerful name and his hard past. But what people don’t realize is that justice needs to be, inevitably, blind to all of this.
The worst part of all this is that his victim is experiencing what happens to most victims. She does not want the attention because of the pain that HE caused. She is afraid of pressing for justice because of what it will do to her life now. Most victims do not even come forward because they are afraid of the repercussions. I feel sorry and am disgusted because her actions will be viewed by many as a typical response to such a crime.
At the very least he needs to stand and fight in the States. What did he do when he thought he would be put in jail? He ran away to another country. Cowardice? I wouldn’t have expected less from a sexual predator.
Hmm. So skipping bail is okay if you don’t agree with the judge? Since when were judges required to accept plea bargains? Since never, that’s when.
And since when should our legal system reward people for thumbing their nose at our system of laws?
Unless the law has radically changed (and I dont’ think it has) then if the plea bargain is not accepted by the judge, then the plea can be withdrawn. He didn’t do this. If he didn’t like the bum deal, he could appeal.
That some weirdo shrinks think a personality type is so easily divined is irrelevent. That a prosecutor thinks that a very lenient plea bargain is irrelevent.
The man drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. In a just society, he would have been hung until he was dead dead dead.
He should immediately be put back on trial, not only for the original charges, but also for skipping bail.
He drugged and raped a 13 year old.
He has spent effectively 0 days in jail.
He drugged and raped a 13 year old.
What am I missing here?
First of all, I am not an apologist for Polanski and think what he did 32 years ago was despicable. I have a 12-year-old daughter who actually resembles Ms. Geimer. However, the legal system is what it is, and many defendants who have perpetrated far worse acts than Polanski are released on probation all the time.
When Polanski pled guilty to the charge, his punishment was up to the prosecutor and the judge. Polanski could have been sent to jail, probably for 3 to 4 years, but the prosecutor offered the plea bargain BECAUSE of the recommendations from the Chino facility. Once the judge agreed to that plea bargain, that should have been it. But the judge listened to a strident, ambitious prosecutor who wanted to be involved in the case but WAS NOT. This was classic judicial misconduct, and Roman Polanski did NOT have to appear in court for a hearing about this misconduct because he was not a witness to it. The prosecutor and defense attorney were the only ones whose presence would have been required at such a hearing.
Roman Polanski cannot be tried again for an offense to which he has already pled guilty. That’s ‘double jeopardy’, so there will be no re-trial of that case. It is over and done with. He would face a hearing on fleeing the country in violation of the order of the court, and I’m sure that Polanski’s attorney would contest based on the obvious judicial misconduct. I think that Polanski would prefer to return to the United States to deal with this, but I’m also sure that his attorneys are telling him that he cannot trust the legal system in Los Angeles, which has refused several requests for a change of venue. A lot of ambitious attorneys here would love to have Polanski’s head mounted on their office wall, and it has zero to do with pursuing justice.
I completely disagree with the remarks made here about the state of mind of the victim. That fact is, Ms. Geimer moved on a long time ago and has “gotten over” what happened to her. She’s married and has two kids, and does not want her life put back under a media spotlight again after all these years just because a City Attorney in Los Angeles wants to get some headlines.
Finally, psychologists and profilers who are trained to evaluate perpetrators of sex crimes unanimously stated that Roman Polanski was NOT a “sexual predator”, therefore he was NOT likely to repeat his behavior. That is why those experts recommended against jail time. The people here who are screaming loudest that Polanski is a predator and that he will strike again simply have no idea what they are talking about.
Elias says this: “The worst part of all this is that his victim is experiencing what happens to most victims. She does not want the attention because of the pain that HE caused. She is afraid of pressing for justice because of what it will do to her life now. Most victims do not even come forward because they are afraid of the repercussions. I feel sorry and am disgusted because her actions will be viewed by many as a typical response to such a crime.”
This is incorrect. Most victims do not want to “press charges” because they don’t want what happened to them to become part of the media circus in Los Angeles whenever a celebrity is involved. The pain that Geimer has felt since the incident has been inflicted on her by the courts and the press, not Polanski. The “repercussions” that happen to many such victims are tabloid stories about their personal lives and incredibly intrusive presence of the paparazzi. The primary purpose of the judicial system to protect the innocent. In Ms. Geimer’s case, the judicial system has been a dismal failure.
I’m sorry. I’m not buying the “psychological trauma” bit. His wife was murdered in 1969. The incident in question happened in 1977. I can believe that horrible things like the murder of a spouse, especially in such a gruesome and public manner, can indeed haunt a person for the rest of their life. I cannot accept it as a reasonable excuse for criminal behavior nearly a decade afterward. Grieving spouses cry, seek therapy, drown their sadness in alcohol or drugs, etc. They do not rape 13-year-old girls to help ail their sorrows.
“But, but – they were going to put him in JAIL!”
Yeah, for another 42 days, in a county lockup. BFD.
Here is what the victim has said in recent public statements:
“”Every time this case is brought to the attention of the court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others,” Geimer wrote in her affidavit to the court. “That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case.”
Geimer was particularly upset when prosecutors filed a fresh version of the entire 1977 grand jury transcript, replete with all the lurid details. “True as they may be, the continued publication of those details cause harm to me,” she wrote in January. “I have become a victim of the actions of the district attorney.”
But people here would ignore the victim and, in the name of “justice”, insist that Polanski be hauled back into court after 32 years over an issue that has nothing to do with what happened to the victim herself.
But people here would ignore the victim and, in the name of “justice”, insist that Polanski be hauled back into court after 32 years over an issue that has nothing to do with what happened to the victim herself.
You can not have typed that with a straight face.
Seriously.
HLN keeps on exclaiming all these “MOVIE” “NAMES” that have signed a petition to release this Child RAPIST INCLUDS Woody Allen — who married his DAUGHTER. Great company…
Mr. Bingley, what Polanski would be dragged back into court for has zero to do with the original charges against him since he has already pled guilty to them. He was grabbed in Zurich on a fugitive warrant. Again, many people here have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about.
If and when Polanski returns to Los Angeles, there is no doubt in my mind that he will be released on probation, exactly as he should have been more than 30 years ago on the recommendation of Chino facility. Defendants who have pled guilty to an offense do not go to trial. The sentencing is left to the prosecutor and judge. In this case, the prosecutor, who undoubtedly knew more about this case that all of us combined, decided to offer a plea bargain that did NOT include jail time. The Judge formally agreed to this plea bargain in the presence of the prosecutor and defense attorney. It was a legally binding agreement. Then the judge, after listening to some idiotic prosecutor who wasn’t even involved in the case, decided to renege on that agreement, which constituted judicial misconduct. At that point, Polanski lost trust in the system and he fled. This was not about trying to escape justice. It was about trying to escape an unpredictable, rogue judge who was not adhering to the rules of his own court.
This is supposed to be a nation of laws, where courts decide punishment, not the mob. Mr. Polanski surrendered himself to the court, pled guilty, and agreed to the two lengthy evaluations at Chino, which both recommended probation. Then Mr. Polanski accepted a plea bargain agreement, which was formally accepted by the judge. At that point, Polanski should have been put on probation and Ms. Geimer would have been spared the attention of the media circus for the last 30 years.
Agreed to two lengthy evaluations at Chino? Agreed? WTF? He should be sent back to the US and face the system, if they did him wrong they can fix it then. What chafes my ass is all the apologists, where are the feminists? That jackass Whoopi Goldberg even suggested it wasn’t rape rape, whatever that is. I didn’t know being an artiste absolved you of crimes.
John, there’s no doubt that things in Hollywood courts don’t always work out the way Judge Blackstone may have intended; it’s a horrific miscarriage of any sense of ‘justice’ when you see the special treatment allotted to wealthy celebrities. But I think Ace has an interesting view on this judge (which i will quote at length):
Oh, and as Allan noted above he’s got noted child development counselor Woody Allen signing a petition demanding his release.
John? Dude? The essense of this thread is the demand for justice on behalf of the victim. In other words, upholding the law which, as you might have heard is not (or at least shouldn’t be)subject to the whims of the elite protecting one of its own.
The LADA has been chasing Polanski since he fled; this is no new story. This isn’t headline chasing. This is the result of relentless pressure by the DA’s office to bring this cretin to ground.
And please. Lay off the moral equivalencies. Polanski drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl. Period. He deserves no absolution for that, not even from the victim no matter what her rationale. Neither he nor she are above the law.
And by the way, Polanski’s coming back to face charges of unlawful flight, evading justice and maybe obstruction.
And John? Remember when feminist loonies demanded jail for innocent men accused of rape with the twisted reasoning that jailing 100 innocent men was better than letting one rapist go free? You’re dangerously close to that “reasoning.”
Sexual offenders are routinely evaluated before they’re sentenced to determine if they meet the legal standard of “sexual predator”. Predators always get jail time. Polanski, who had admitted his guilt, was evaluated and the recommendation was probation. When a person pleads guilty, there is NO TRIAL because the defendant is not contesting the charges. Polanski will NEVER be tried for this offense because of his plea. That is our legal system. No judge is going to force a defendant to go to trial for an offense to which he has already pled guilty. This sole issue is that Polanski failed to report for sentencing when the Judge, who had already agreed to the plea bargain, reneged. Hope that’s clear enough for you.
Based on what I know about Polanski and this incident, it is clear that he has never been a sexual predator. It also clear that this sexually active 13-year-old aspiring actress agreed to pose topless for Polanski the day before the incident. It is also clear that she was never restrained or even held in a locked room. In fact, her own testimony shows that Polanski expressed concern for her feigned asthma. In spite of that, she said that she stayed because she was afraid of Polanski, even though her testimony indicated that he had never threatened her in any way. The word “rape” conjures up all sorts of ugly images of violence and brutality, and it’s important to understand that this was not that kind of rape. A rape, nonetheless, but not the kind that leaves the victim scarred for life. Listen to the victim herself. Clearly, any scars left on Samantha Geimer have been left there by the District Attorney of Los Angeles and the media.
One more thing. I wonder what CNN and the elite think of this little gem (full disclosure: I found it at Paco’s)?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/28/at-the-presidents-pleasure/
All sexual predators should be jailed and the key should be thrown away. No question about that. Genuine predators’ brains are wired to do commit the crimes they commit, and they cannot be rehabilitated. I would be at the head of any mob who was after a sexual predator who had been turned loose on society due to a legal technicality.
But Roman Polanski is NOT a sexual predator.
Polanski made a terrible mistake when took advantage of Samantha Geimer. But there are reasons why this man, who had everything to lose by this thoughtless lapse in judgment, did what he did. This was not a man who was a mindless, sexual deviant who preyed on children. He had no history of that behavior and, like it or not, prior offenses play a major role in determining a defendant’s sentence. With the recommendation from the doctor’s at Chino, it was clear, even to the prosecutor, that this case called for a sentence of time-served and probation. That’s how it would have been handled if the defendant’s name had been Roman Johnson.
But Roman Polanski’s celebrité worked against him in this case. The judge, fearing he would be looked on by the press as soft on celebrities, reneged on a legally binding agreement with the defense and prosecution.
John – if Ms. Geimer has suffered from the conduct of the LA District Attorney, then she has recourse to the civil courts. Let her use them. It’s a separate issue from Polanski reporting back to the courthouse for his own long-delayed sentencing and trial on additional charges. Since when does Polanski get a free pass just because his victim has forgiven him, or because she may have a case against the prosecutors?
I will leave aside comment on your oh-so-carefully-worded distinction of which rape is brutal and scarring, and which isn’t, for fear of my own blood pressure. But I will mention that I’ve been concerned for any number of asthmatic girls, and never once tried to coerce them to have sex with me.
JohnRJ08, are you a lawyer? You sure don’t sound like one.
In a plea bargain, if the judge doesn’t accept the contracted bargain, the admission of guilt is withdrawn.
If you don’t like your judge, you’re not allowed to flee the country. I don’t know any jurisdiction that thinks highly of that tactic. Even if the judge is incompetent and blatantly corrupt, there are appeals for that situation.
What do you know about predation and what the hell difference does it make.
Ever hear the story of the man that made a thousand movies? They called him a movie maker. But then he only raped one girl. They stopped calling him a movie maker and called him a rapist.
I’ll tell you what. I’m not a psychologist but I know that when you give a 13 year old girl quaaludes and rape her, that makes you a predator and a rapist. And when you flee the jurisdiction, you’re on the lam. End of story.
NIghtfly– you can’t sue the District Attorney for something like this in a civil court. The victim of a crime cannot sue the DA for filiing charges OR not filing charges against the perpetrator of that crime. In this case, the victim agreed to and received a settlement from Polanski which eliminated the need for any civil action against him.
Again, Polanski was NEVER going to trial for this offense. He pled guilty. Sheesh!
Your blood pressure notwithstanding, my comment about rape was absolutely accurate. And you totally miss the point about the asthma, which was that the victim herself testified that Polanski spoke kindly to her and was never violent or threatening. If this had been a brutal sexual assault where the victim tried to fight off her attacker and was injured, it would have been an entirely different case. I’ve read the victim’s testimony and that is not what happened at all.
And Polanski’s so-called “free pass” is exactly what any other defendant with no priors would have received in this case: time served and probation.
Wow John. Those are some great arguments you lay out. However… You have a few problems.
1. You say rape tends to be violent. I guess you’ve never heard of “roofies”. You know. Those drugs that are slipped into drinks so women can then be raped without any violence.
2. Taking photos of a 13 year old girl that you ask to remove her top, makes you a pedophile, and proprietor in kiddie porn.
3. Providing Alcohol and queludes to a child is child abuse.
4. Continuing with sexual advances against anyone that says no, is in fact molestation and rape.
5. How the victim feels today, is of no regard to the crime that was committed. Or would you have been ok with Mary K Loterno fleeing the country until her future husband was 18?
6. Fleeing the country rather than face a sentencing is also illegal, and in itself requires an additional prison term.
7. My final part… Are you familiar with the term APPEAL. If Polanski was getting hosed by a judge that reneged on a plea agreement, it would have been exposed in an appeal, and polanski would have been freed.
//The victim of a crime cannot sue the DA for filiing charges OR not filing charges against the perpetrator of that crime.//
I didn’t say this at all. I said that their treatment of HER could constitute a civil offense against her. It has nothing to do with whether or not they charge Polanski – we already know that they did and he risked going to the pokey until he thought twice and absconded.
//Again, Polanski was NEVER going to trial for this offense. He pled guilty. Sheesh!//
Sheesh indeed. I said he was returning for long-delayed sentencing, and then trial for additional charges, NOT that he was going to trial for the rape. Sheesh all you want. It’s you who are firing your blanks at false targets.
//And you totally miss the point about the asthma, which was that the victim herself testified that Polanski spoke kindly to her and was never violent or threatening.//
NO – I got that point. What you fail to get is my point, which is that speaking kindly isn’t a license nor an excuse for coerced sex and sodomy with a minor. Lest you miss THAT part, this is coerced sex and sodomy with a minor, and frankly it makes no damned difference to me whether he was a well-spoken bastard when he did it.
Actually, if the plea is not accepted, then there’s a good chance that there will be a trial. Sheesh.
Well, Skyler, you sound a lot less lawyerly than I do. First of all, your facts are wrong. The judge accepted the plea bargain, in the presence of the prosecutor and defense attorney. It was a legally binding agreement. Polanski chose to flee after the PROSECUTOR warned his attorney that the judge was going to renege. (Clearly, the prosecutor of the case knew the judge was out of line).
Any man who drugs and seduces an under-age girl deserves to get in a lot of trouble. The question is, how much punishment amounts to justice, and how much is just hatred of those coddled, rich celebrities? It is up to the courts to make that determination. In this case, the court sent Polanski to Chino twice for nearly 3 months of intense psychiatric evaluation. Those professionals determined that he was NOT a predator, despite your sincere belief that he is, and THAT is why the PROSECUTOR offered the plea bargain.
What I’m getting here is a strong sense that many of you believe Polanski’s plea bargain didn’t amount to severe enough punishment, so you’re eager to excuse the judge’s misconduct. Again, if Roman Polanski’s name had been Roman Johnson, he would have been offered the identical plea bargain, and all of this would have been over 30 years ago.
A lot of high horses here.
A)Had Mr. Polanski simply faced the consequences of his actions, this entire ordeal would have been put to rest long ado.
B) While justice is supposed to be blind, no justice system, ours included is immune to the political motivations of those who work in it. This has been apparent in a number of high-profile cases, which I will not name because that will simply throw this argument onto a whole other tangent but we are well aware of them. This is why it is difficult to find common cause with anyone who is guilty of a crime, yet tries to avoid the consequences by deflecting blame to peripheral issues.
C) Whether or not Mr. Polanski would have been incarcerated or won an appeal to go on probation, we will never know. What we do know is that instead of serving probation, community service, or any time incarcerated he has been allowed to quite literally live in the lap of luxury in France. This sets a horrible precedent, which would in turn allow anyone else who would drug and rape a young child to point to Mr. Polanski as a reason to avoid punishment.
Spoke soothingly to her? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Seems a pretty consistent pattern for a PREDATOR (as if that’s even important) who wants to have a compliant victim.
A quick perusal of wikipedia gives the following symptoms of quaaludes:
“Usual effects include relaxation, euphoria, and drowsiness”
No need to be forceful or mean when you can make them be euphoric and relaxed. Isn’t that the point of giving her drugs?
As for the victim’s wishes to drop the matter, I can hardly blame her. This creep has dragged her through the mud for decades.
So, what you’re saying is that if a man wants to keep making life miserable for a woman, he can dope her, rape her, and then run away from the law and then get away scot free.
It seems to me that if he had gone to jail as he deserved (even for a pathetic 42 days), then this would have ended a long time ago. Every day since that rape HE had the power to end this story and he hasn’t.
This is no longer a crime against just a child, this is a crime against our society. He has brought all of this on himself. He deserves to have the book thrown at him.
John, you’re assuming that the judge was going to not accept the plea. Since the rapist didn’t appear, the judge was never given the opportunity to do so. It’s mere speculation that this would have happened, regardless of what a corrupt prosecutor said. I suspect, too, that perhaps the judge was planning to act within his discretion.
I don’t know what the civil procedure was like in California in the 70’s or whenever this occurred. But I can bet that if the judge had done something wrong, the correct way to address it is to appeal, do a writ of mandamus, or other action to correct the error. People are not allowed to declare what judges they want to obey or not.
This is stupid. Do any of you think this guy is a threat to society? Even the so called ‘victim’ wants this to go away and claims the courts are doing more harm than good. Times like this makes me ashamed to be American…
Woody Allen is demanding Polanski’s release … Woody Allen of all people?!?!
Wow John. Do you even read your own posts? The judge was going to reneg on a legally binding agreement? Are you aware that a judge can be disbarred? And are you serious? If his name was Roman Johnson he would have been given the same deal and it would all be over? Let’s be real. If his name was Roman Johnson, it would be over by now. Only Mr. Johnson would have served 10 years in chino.
The “victim” needs to remember she is a “victim” of Roman Polanski. HE IS the one that raped her & did NOT take responsibility by FLEEING the country & HE is the one who has dragged this out for 30 years … not the court system.
Taking responsibility is not just admitting your crime it’s facing the consequences of your crime!
Pike, you should be ashamed that you would stick up for a man that likes to diddle little girls, and for mocking the little girl’s plight.
He should not be locked up solely because he is, or was, a threat to little girls, but for punishment. And for fleeing justice.
Judges don’t get disbarred for judicial misconduct. They are forced to resign or retire. Judge Rittenbrand, who had actually asked a reporter what he thought the sentence should be, reneged on a legally binding agreement, but his misconduct was never challenged because the plaintiff (Polanski) had left the country.
The day before the sentencing—despite an agreement with the defense and the prosecution—Ritterband was overheard bragging at his country club that he was going to lock up Polanski for the rest of his life. The straight-arrow Mormon prosecutor Roger Gunson, has been quite vocal about this. He offered Polanski what he felt was a lawful and fair plea bargain offer, which was accepted by Polanski via his attorney. Then, in the judge’s chambers, the prosecutor and defense attorney presented the agreement to Rittenbrand, who accepted without condition.
Polanski’s subsequent appearance was to be a judicial formality. But Rittenbrand’s country club bragging got back to the prosecutor– that he was going to renege on the deal once he got Polanski in the courtroom and planned to have Polanski taken off to prison that day. The prosecutor felt angry and betrayed, so he warned Polanski’s attorney before they came to court. It was at that time that Polanski decided to flee, because he knew what was coming and it had nothing to do with what he had agreed to. Even the prosecutor now says, “I’m not surprised he left under those circumstances.”
As a first-offender and given the facts of the case, “Mr. Johnson” would have been ordered to go through the same evaluation that Polanski went though at Chino and, unless he had any previously unknown psychosis, the recommendation of probation would have been exactly the same. Period. And THEN it would have been over, except for the probationary period.
A Neimark– “A)Had Mr. Polanski simply faced the consequences of his actions, this entire ordeal would have been put to rest long ado.”
Mr. Polanski surrendered to the authorities and pleaded guilty in court. He was then incarcerated in Chino and underwent 3 months of pscyhe evaluations, which determined that he was NOT a sexual predator nor was he a “danger to little girls”. Because of the guilty plea, there was no trial, so the judge awaited the district attorney’s recommendation. (It is routinely up to the DA to ask for a specific sentence from the court).
Gunson, the prosecutor, decided what kind of plea deal he was willing to offer Polanskis and the defense accepted it. At no point did Roman Polanski think of fleeing or not “facing up to the consequences of his actions” until he learned that Judge Rittenbrand was going to renege on the plea bargain agreement and put him in prison “for the rest of his life”.
Hearsay by a straight-arrow mormon is still hearsay.
The act of reneging on the plea is not done until it is done. If true that the judge was thinking of doing it, that does not require that he was to have done it. This is what appeals are for. You can’t flee a jurisdiction just because you don’t like the judge or his actions.
And yes, judges most certainly do get disbarred and as well as be forced to resign. You really don’t know anything about the subject of law, from what I can tell.
You seem hung up on what some crackpot psychologists opined about whether they liked this child rapist or not. It seems to me that a 40 year old man that dopes up 13 year old girls is a danger. Res ipsa loquitur.
“Times like this makes me ashamed to be American…”
America is ashamed of you so it all balances out.
“At no point did Roman Polanski think of fleeing or not “facing up to the consequences of his actions” until he learned that Judge Rittenbrand was going to renege on the plea bargain agreement and put him in prison “for the rest of his life”.”
Which means Polanski fled when he faced real consequences rather than a BS slap on the wrist buttressed by a bunch of loony psychobabble.
I am so sorry for Samantha that she has had to live with this her entire life. But that should never let Polanski off the proverbial hook. We count on our justice system to be just that, Just and Honest. And I am not sure why the first replier had to use God’s name to make his point but since it was permitted I will also make my point using God’s Name. In God’s Word, the Holy Bible, it says that God forgives sins through the blood of Jesus Christ. Thereby “time” does not forgive sin. The difference with our judicial system and God’s is this. Our judicial system which I hope still serves Justice, cannot forgive Polanski by forgetting his crime because it happened so long ago. He will still have to pay the penalty of committing a crime against the law. The justice system still has to carry out the law by implementing his full sentence regardless of the length of time it has been since his crime. Also, it is the same way that the God of the Universe cannot let us off scott free either just because we have not lied, stolen, lusted or used His name in vain for awhile. The only way to truly be forgiven of breaking God’s laws is to repent, confess your sins (broken law’s) to God and trust in Him with all your heart, mind and soul. Otherwise the penalty we will have to pay for God’s laws (sins) that we have broken will be eternity in hell. It seems our judicial system isn’t so hard after all compared to God’s justice system in eternity. I ask that we all look at our own lives and see where we are guilty of breaking God’s laws and repent and trust in Jesus Christ to flee from the wrath that will come. Man can only put you in jail for life or kill you. But God can kill and has the power to cast you into hell as well. May this Polanski case be an example to all of us. We are to demand that justice carry out its moral obligation to the law as in the Polanski case. But we should also realize that God will also demand of us moral perfection. Yet he knows there is no way we can be perfect and He knows that He will come down on us with His wrath and that is why Jesus Christ died for the laws that we broke. Jesus paid our fine and took our penalty upon Himself on the cross. If you believe this, repent, confess your sins, and put on the Lord Jesus Christ then you will be free to go on judgment day. If you don’t believe this then read the Bible and check it out for yourself. Just as Polanski’s day is coming in the courts, our day is coming when we will stand before the Great Judge of the Universe. If you trust in Jesus Christ, you will see your Savior on that day.
He was an adult who decided to take advantage of a child. He used his fame to put her in a position to seduce her.
He raped a child. It was wrong and he should pay the consequences for stealing a normal life away from that child. His wife and baby had their lives stolen from them. This is no better. The courts are not at fault, a person who preys on children is.
Now he has been free for thirty such years since the rape. What has he done to others since then? Since the crime he committed had no consequence, do we think he simply changed his behavior on his own? Send him to jail.
JohnRJ08 said “First of all, I am not an apologist for Polanski”, and then expends millions of pixels explaining why Polanski should be let go.
Which just tells me that JohnRJ08 is spouting BS. Concern trolls do that.
John you say Polanski,s fame worked against him. Proveit. Find me 5 cases in California where a 40+ year old non famous man drugged and raped a girl under 15 and was deemed by the Chino facility to not be a predator.
What the Hell is wrong with these people????? OMG the man is a child rapist! Debra Winger, Woody Allen (another pedaphile), Martin Scorcese???? How would they feel if it had been their 13 year old daughter drugged and raped anally by a 43 year old man! His sorry ass should rot in prison for the rest of his useless, disgusting life!
Gunslinger, I’ve been an American probably far longer than you have and have served in the military defending wimps like you. Lay off the personal attacks and get back to the point. What justice is being served here by a guaranteed failure to prosecute Polanski?
As a sidenote, my ex-wifes first marriage was at age 14 in Mississippi back in the 70’s. Where is your moral outrage over that little factoid?
Skyler, I am a practical man who deals in the real world. There are many far more important things to worry about in the world than this.
“Gunslinger, I’ve been an American probably far longer than you have”
I, unlike yourself, have never been ashamed of my country.
” and have served in the military defending wimps like you.”
So have I, in combat no less. The day you can throw around artillery rounds like I have is the day I will allow you to get away with calling me a wimp, REMF.
“What justice is being served here by a guaranteed failure to prosecute Polanski?”
A well deserved life sentence for the rape of a thirteen year old girl that was dodged by fleeing justice.
“As a sidenote, my ex-wifes first marriage was at age 14 in Mississippi back in the 70’s. Where is your moral outrage over that little factoid?”
Did the marriage proposal involve a 44 year old pervert, a jacuzzi, alcohol, quaaludes, and rape?
There are many far more important things to worry about in the world than this.
Oh, so the perversion of justice is not important?
The ardent support by the Hollywood “elite” of a convicted child rapist is not important?
What planet do you live on?
HA!
The dirty old raping perv only has himself to blame for his arrest.
If you don’t know that the world is rotten to the core, your soul must be dead.
HA! indeed, Guns! HA!
I usually give criminals the benefit of the doubt,But Roman
has always struck me as a sick
little pervert.His movies-outside of Rosemary’s Baby- aren’t good,either.Bad things
happen to bad people..
Dear John0rj08: They’re not ever
going to extradite him to the US.
Never in a million years.But, he’s still a piece of overrated
crap.He wasn’t even in the US when his wife was killed.
He’s part of that world,where every yawn filmed
is exclaimed as brillant.
A guy like him could screw every starlet on two legs,yet
he wanted the ultimate thrill
of a 13year-old girl.
Sent him back Arabic France where he hide in his chateau
and act the genius..
John – how much are you being paid by the defense? (as you have been spewing your cr*p on just about every board I have been on this subject).
As for your “daughter” – come spew your idiocy after your kid is raped, or one of your family members is murdered… and you wonder why the idiot that did the deed was let off by society because the crime he previously was found guilty on was a “cold case” and the guy got away from punishment because he RAN ahead of his assumption that the judge that his defense attorney was in cahoots with may either back out of the “deal” or get pulled off the case. Geez…
Hmm, order of law was established to be followed and able to be amended both for the times and to resolve necessary loopholes. This is for the benefit of society: necessarily, law must be followed for a wrong to be righted and/or a wrong or legal inconsistency to be fixed. We all break the speed limit, but if someone gets a ticket, they still pay the bloody fine. Going by Pike and John, I’m pretty sure that my next speeding ticket I can tell the cop to fuck himself along with the system. After all, regardless of my speed or even how long until the cops catch me next (this next time I’ll be driving on a suspended license) I don’t have to listen to the judge, I can just leave the country (which by your lovely rationalization is also not a crime).
The rape doesn’t really even surprise me, what angers me is that you guys rationalize the validity of that rape by passage of time, comparison to a (by your own words) legal (jackass) marriage, unproven law because it didn’t happen as the accused broke ANOTHER law to avoid procedure, and other generalized half-assed red-herring bullshit arguments. What the hell is wrong with you tards?
And no, it’s not namecalling, it’s hereby your official label.
Also, this bullshit excuse about “there’s more important things”….Escapist cryptologic meant to excuse yourself from a conversation you were never really in seeing as your brain never once deemed it worthy to engage.
There’s more important things? No shit? Really? Last I checked the reason we had a government was to handle multiple issues within the state and federal level at the same time? Geeze, all this time it was a FIFO system?! Why didn’t they tell me that years ago? I would have started culling those I despise way back then. Cause ya know what? There’s more important things this country needs to take care of.
Wake the fuck up and grow a pair. I’m pretty sure most human beings, down to and including yourself are capable of multitasking.
::twitch:: Right, I’m not done yet.
I’m also sick of this fucktard auto-defense that you’ve served your country. You know what? While we appreciate that, your service is neither a unique feature among the members of this very esteemed forum nor more importantly is it relevant to the conversation. Provided you actually have served, one would think you’d have more class or brains as a prior. I don’t care if you were the resident pooperscooper for the base mascot.
The mere fact that you brought it up as some defensible justification of your thought process, without other precursor of it in the conversation? And the gall that you assume that you would never be talking to another service or prior-service member? You are walking (maybe), talking (please Christ, not within earshot), typing (unfortunately) proof that simply because you serve makes you neither capable of logical conversation or anything beyond ethical equivocation. Ergo, REMF.
John, here’s a quote from 1979 from this poor fellow who you are so sure “is not a predator”:
He drugged and raped a 13 year old.
The level of moral outrage in this blog is somewhat amusing. The people who scream loudest for another person’s head inevitably end up being guilty of their own peculiar sins. So they compensate by joining the mob and demanding vengeance on someone else. I suppose it makes them feel more righteous. A sad cliché.
The fact is, nobody can say what Polanski would have done if his defense attorney hadn’t been warned of the judge’s misconduct before the sentencing. Nobody even knows if Rittenbrand would have followed through with his threat to imprison Polanski for life. One thing is for sure: if the judge had honored the plea bargain and Polanski had been sentenced to time-served and probation, we would not be talking about this issue today, and the victim of this crime wouldn’t still be receiving unwanted attention in the media.
The legal system, i.e. the prosecutor, the Chino facility, and the judge, agreed that the suitable punishment for this defendant was time-served plus probation. Of course, there will always be self-righteous moralists who demand their pound of flesh and think anything short of a death sentence is inadequate for what Polanski did. But that’s the mob mentality talking, not the legal system.
For every negative thing that can be said about Polanski, many positive things can also be said. But all of those things are irrelevant to how the legal process routinely determines a sentence. The nature of the crime, prior offenses, and a psychological evaluation all come together in making that determination. Polanski had unlawful sex with a minor– a sexually active 13-year-old who was never threatened or physically injured during the incident. Of course, it was still a statutory rape, but it was not an aggravated assault and false imprisonment. That is clearly evident in the transcripts of the girl’s testimony. All of that is taken into consideration during sentencing, and the DA’s office and prosecutor knew that, even if some of you don’t. The judge knew it, too, which is why he agreed with the plea bargain.
Sexual predators should receive harsh sentences and be closely monitored after their release. Polanski was never a sexual predator and the court knew that. The court also knew that it was Polanski’s only such offense. One could argue that he should have received a year or two in prison, but suggesting that he deserved to be sent to prison for life is ridiculous. There are criminals, and there are people who just make one terrible mistake. There’s a difference. Unless you’ve never made any mistakes and have led a Christ-like existence, demanding a draconian punishment in this case just makes you look like a hypocrite.
It occurs to me, if I had a 13 year old kid, and some guy did this to her, he’d be begging to be put in prison. To get him away from me. Because I’d want to cut off his nuts and stuff them down his throat.
John – like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target. [/shatner]
Our crimes (or lack thereof) have nothing to do with what Polanski did, and then what he further did to thwart justice. Zero, nada, bubkes. And for every “self-righteous person” there’s usually a soft-hearted, empty headed armchair psychologist who can’t talk about an issue or an event; they are incapable of rebutting another person’s argument so they declare it null and void by making wild presumptions about the arguer’s state of mind, personal history, or motivations. Talk about sad clichés.
It kind of stings when someone else applies that sort of thing to you, doesn’t it? So take your own advice about casting the first stone and quit assuming that everyone here is on a high horse or is morally self-righteous.
How high do you have to sit to call rape, rape? Having a moral outrage over something morally outrageous is not judgmental, it’s healthy. We could not live intelligently in the world without having some such moral compass.
In your zeal to take up Polanski’s case you are minimizing the horror of his offense, to the point of absurdity – such as the constant reference to Ms. Geimer as “sexually active 13-year old girl” (and what happened to all your concern for her feelings yesterday?) or that Polanski didn’t threaten or physically injure her. You end by calling it a “mistake” – and frankly, calling the drugging and raping of a 13-year-old “a mistake” is sort of like calling Stonehenge a handful of prehistoric Lego blocks. Rape is by definition a profound violation of a person’s body and psyche; he used drugs, alcohol, and his celebrity to force himself on her, rather than simply smacking her around, but it makes it no less horrible.
And, again – you can argue the cicrumstances are mitigating if you like, but you can’t defend that he fled. He faced justice only when he thought it would be lenient. That’s not really defensible. Nor it is particularly Christian (since you brough Him up). If this was such a terrible mistake that he regretted, he’d have given himself up to the law.
ricki, my question for you is, would you have left your 13-year-old kid in the hands of a director you didn’t know so he could photograph her, and would your daughter have agreed to pose topless for him? Not to attack the victim here, but she was a sexually active 13 year old who already knew what a quaalude looked like. Would your kid have stayed in the jacuzzi with Polanski after he got in without any clothes on? Geimer claimed that she had been plied with champagne and half a quaalude, but her testimony at the arraignment indicated an excellent memory of everything that happened, from the moment she got into the hot tub until she walked out and said “Hi” to Angelica Huston. This is not to condone what Polanski did at all. But it does indicate that this was anything but a brutal rape of an innocent child.
He drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. A child. How can you possibly say he “was never a sexual predator” when he sexually preyed upon a 13 year old? And this ‘blame the victim’ game you’re playing, calling her ‘sexually active’ as if she was some Paris Hilton strumpet is frankly revolting in addition to being completely irrelevant: she said ‘no’. She was 13, he was 40+. You may think she was ‘never threatened or physically injured’ but to think that a child will not be subject to coercion by an adult, especially a child that has been given alcohol and drugs, beggars belief as does your claim that anal sex by a 40+ year old man with a 13 year old child somehow does not amount to physical abuse.
You can be amused all you like but your position is simply untenable and repugnant.
My concern for the victim has been consistent. What Polanski did was horrific and a crime. The only reason I bring up the “sexually active 13-year-old” issue is because it goes to the nature of the crime.
Geimer was not an innocent little 8-year-old who didn’t understand what was going around her. Geimer knew exactly what was happening when Polanski stepped into the hot tub naked. According to her own testimony, there was no coercion or attempt to physically restrain her. The prosecution took all this into consideration when determining the plea bargain.
We can all sit here at our computers and yell ‘Off with their heads’, but that has nothing to do with how legal system handles a case like this. If you do something stupid and break a law, you expect the legal system to deal with you honestly and according to its own rules. That didn’t happen in this case. And that’s why the prosecutor said he didn’t blame Polanski for fleeing the country.
We’re talking about two separate issues here. One is the crime itself and how terrible it was. The other is how the legal process handled it. If you can’t separate those two in a discussion, then there’s no point in participating in a blog like this. You just end up attacking anybody who suggests that the judge was guilty of misconduct, which mitigates Polanski’s decision to flee the country.
I didn’t say he wasn’t a sexual predator. Two sets of psychologists at Chino made that determination in two separate psyche evaluations that were ordered by the court. So, Mr. Bingley, it is clear that you think you know better than those experts. I get that. I also get that you don’t think the nature of this crime is any different from an aggravated assault resulting in physical injury, and that Roman Polanski belongs in the same category as someone like Ted Bundy. I get that you’re hopping mad. I also get that you don’t understand how the legal process is supposed to work in this country.
I understand enough about the legal system to know that the defendant isn’t supposed to flee the country before sentencing.
John,
I dont buy the “judicial misconduct” routine. Judges are free to make their decisions based upon solid and sound legal arguments from whatever source, even if he has heard motions from both the defense and the DA on plea bargains. As a convicted defendant, Polanski was required to abide by sentencing as required by the judge. he bailed. Plain and simple. he’s a fugitive, a convicted pedophile and a rapist. He belongs in jail. period
And if you dont think polanski’s crime was all that bad, grab your twelve year old daughter, take her to chino and hand her over to some guy being counseled for pedophilia andchild molestation, along with a bottle of Dom perignon and a qualuude or two.
Of course, Polanski broke the law when he fled the country. No one is contesting that. What Polanski’s attorneys are saying, which I happen to agree with, is that there were mitigating circumstances for his flight. Those circumstances involved serious and undisputed judicial misconduct. Polanski had agreed to go to Chino and undergo the psyche evaluation twice AND that he would abide by the recommendation of that facility. He was fully prepared to face those consequences at sentencing. But the judge decided to ignore the Chino evaluation and renege on the legally binding plea bargain primarily because of the influence of another prosecutor who wasn’t even involved in the case. Mitigation does not completely excuse Polanski’s flight. It does, however, mean that the court will look at it in a different light.
Val Prieto, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills before you post remarks.
Val Prieto, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills before you post remarks.
Best to follow your own advice, John.
Of course, Polanski broke the law when he fled the country. No one is contesting that. What Polanski’s attorneys are saying, which I happen to agree with, is that there were mitigating circumstances for his flight.
No. There. Aren’t.
Polanksi plead GUILTY to statutory rape. He plead GUILTY to STATUTORY RAPE.
HE. PLEAD. GUILTY. TO. STATUTORY. RAPE.
Which was a REDUCTION in charges from FORCIBLE rape.
If there was judicial misconduct, he had avenues to appeal them. He just didn’t have the balls to stand up like a man and take ANY of his medicine. So he turned tail and ran yipping out the country like a scared dog.
And you condone the flight of a SELF-ADMITTED RAPIST. Which makes you the apologist that you said you weren’t.
Roman Polanski is a CHILD RAPIST. He plead guilty on a lesser charge, but remains a CHILD RAPIST from the facts. He has no excuses for his cowardly exit from America.
Deal with it, John. You are defending the indefensible, and putting yourself on the same level as Roman Polanski.
What’s next, the “It was rape, not rape rape” defense?
Yeah, I don’t know shit I guess. I do know that I’ve never mentioned aggravated assault; silly me I’ve let the drugging and raping of a 13 year old girl distract me. I do know that I’ve never mentioned Ted Bundy. I do know that plea bargain are not binding on judges in California and Polanski was told this and that he was aware that the sentence could be tougher than what he expected. I do know that the judge was not impressed b y your experts in Chino and wanted him deported. I do know there is an irony in him self-deporting.
I do know that you seem to place the age of sexual consent somewhere between 8 and 13
and this knowledge makes me quite happy that you don’t live in my neighborhood.
John,
I comprehend completely correctly:
Guy drugs and rapes minor girl. Goes to psych eval and pleads guilty after plea bargain with DA. Then bails before judges renders sentencing.
I doubt that, as you have stated here, ad nauseum, the plea bargain was legally binding prior to actual sentencing hearing. Had that been the case, his attorneys, which Im sure were top knotch, certainly had a more than excellent case for appeal. And thus absolutely NO NEED for Polanski to take flight.
I capiche quit well, I just dont swallow the verbose diarheah.
buh bye, John.
//What’s next, the “It was rape, not rape rape” defense?//
He’s already used it more than once, JeffS:
“The word “rape” conjures up all sorts of ugly images of violence and brutality, and it’s important to understand that this was not that kind of rape. A rape, nonetheless, but not the kind that leaves the victim scarred for life.”
That’s a comment from 9/29, 3:43 pm. I called him on it, and his reply at 4:23 reads, in part:
“…my comment about rape was absolutely accurate… the victim herself testified that Polanski spoke kindly to her and was never violent or threatening. If this had been a brutal sexual assault where the victim tried to fight off her attacker and was injured, it would have been an entirely different case.”
Going for three – today, 11:52 am, with the added allegation that the girl wasn’t a virgin: “Polanski had unlawful sex with a minor– a sexually active 13-year-old who was never threatened or physically injured during the incident. Of course, it was still a statutory rape, but it was not an aggravated assault and false imprisonment.”
And finally, doubling down on the crazy at 12:56 pm: Geimer knew exactly what was happening when Polanski stepped into the hot tub naked. According to her own testimony, there was no coercion or attempt to physically restrain her.”
So, yeah, it’s as bad as you suspect it is.
If he broke the law, regardless of reason, he needs to face the law and be judged. That’s why it exists. I’m guessing your particular sin is you wish you could behave like this asshole and actually be defended. Just a guess.
“So, Mr. Bingley, it is clear that you think you know better than those experts.”
I can’t speak for Bingley, but I certainly do. There is no reason, ever, to exonerate a man who preys on children by doping them, getting them drunk, and then raping them. Saying he is not a predator, especially since his statements afterwards indicate no remorse and indeed glee at what he did. The man is a sicko and should be hung up. Sadly, the law doesn’t allow capital punishment for rape anymore. In a more civilized time it did.
The actions of the parent are irrelevent. If she had no parents at all, she should still have some protection of the law. As it is, if the mother truly knew, or could reasonably expect that the man was going to make kiddy porn with her daughter, then the mother should be likewise prosecuted for child endangerment. I’m guessing that it’s not the experience she wanted for her daughter, but we shouldn’t presume to know as much as you do about the workings of her mind.
I’m guessing that John is a member of NAMBLA.
Peoples morals are what they are and you are obviously lacking in anything resembling a moral norm. Simple fact is, the argument at it’s core, is legal. You’ve already admitted he broke the law. But, by some twisted form of conceptual idiocy you come to the conclussion that by breaking the law, you’re kosher. Congrats, you, Chavez and Zelaya should get together sometime. You all have very curious concepts on “it’s applicable to everyone but me and the people I’d like to defend”.
Too many ignorant comments to address individually, so I’ll just make a general comment. Most of you know that there are all kinds of murder. Right? There’s 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder. There’s murder with malice. There’s negligent homicide. There’s manslaughter. In each of those cases, the victim is in exactly the same condition= DEAD. Despite that common result, the court sentences defendants based on the nature of their crime, which determined by many things under the law.
I’ve read here that Roman Polanski is sexual predator and pedophile. Of course, neither of those things were borne out by the psyche evaluations or Polanski’s history. Ranting and raving and attacking me isn’t going to alter that fact.
The victim didn’t want a trial. The prosecutor didn’t want a trial. The defense didn’t want a trial. And the judge accepted Polanski’s guilty plea, so he didn’t want it to go trial, either. All that was left was the sentencing, and that is routinely based on what the District Attorney asks the court to impose. Now, you can scream and shout about this, but it is the way things are done in our legal system.
The fact is, when a judge reneges on a plea deal he is guilty of judicial misconduct because no prosecutor or defense attorney could ever believe or trust that judge again. Therefore, again, when Polanski found out that the judge was going to “put him in prison for life” his decision to flee was mitigated by that knowledge.
As far as what Polanski’s punishment should have been, I think most first offenders who were found not to be sexual predators would have gotten the same plea bargain offered to him. In our legal system, the state (or, in this case, the district attorney’s office) asks for a specific punishment, e.g. the death penalty, life in prison, probation, etc. The judge cannot ignore the recommendations of experts he himself has selected, then ignore the prosecution’s plea bargain.
One more time…
If there had been no such judicial misconduct, it is highly unlikely that Polanski would have fled the country before the hearing.
By the way, several of you people need to learn that in an anonymous forum of this kind, personal insults are an idiotic waste of time.
Let’s review the facts of the case:
1)California’s legal definition of rape
2)He gave you young child a pill that: enhances arousal, induces euphoric hypnotic states while feeding an minor alcohol (also illegal, maybe you’ve noted)
3)Indecent exposure to a minor
4)Forced sexual activity against a minor. Was specifically told no on anal intercourse, forced it anyhow. She admits to being afraid enough that she began resisting and then stopped due to fear.
What part of this are you missing? I fail to see how you can rationalize this with “Uh, well, no one wanted anything done about it”. At that age it’s her parents discretion, not hers, which you casually skip over to support your fallacious theory. Whether someone would prefer or not to prosecute it’s still a crime being committed. To maintain order, crimes must be punished.
Oh, and my sweet, sweet jackass, I don’t insult you for in hopes you’ll wake up, your benefit or denigration. We already think you’re an ass; if that wasn’t already blatantly obvious. The labeling of your specific brand of idiocy, simply makes me feel…well, honestly, amused. In the end, it’s better to laugh at people with your viewpoints. See, cause it’s not legal to do anything about it. Oh, wait, by your viewpoint, I guess it is? Thank whatever spiky deity is around the Justice system works (vaguely) our way. This is where maybe you wake up to the fact that you’re progressing the idea that a physical offense may simply be walked away from in the Justice system. I wouldn’t wish you getting mugged, raped or physically assaulted in any other way…namely because you’re a momentary amusement for me and don’t matter in any other form. But I bring that up because I wonder if that is exactly what it might take for someone in your position to be enlightened.
“By the way, several of you people need to learn that in an anonymous forum of this kind, personal insults are an idiotic waste of time.”
So is verbal masturbation but that obviously doesn’t stop you.
Most of you know that there are all kinds of murder.
We are not discussing murder. We are discussing a person who plead guilty to rape, and then fled the country before sentencing.
Don’t change the subject.
Of course, neither of those things were borne out by the psyche evaluations or Polanski’s history. Ranting and raving and attacking me isn’t going to alter that fact.
I don’t care what his psyche exam says. His HISTORY says he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. By his own admission, at least, he committed statutory rape. By the evidence, he committed forcible rape.
The prosecutor didn’t want a trial.
So why was there a trial in the first place? Curious, that.
As far as what Polanski’s punishment should have been, I think most first offenders who were found not to be sexual predators would have gotten the same plea bargain offered to him.
It isn’t what YOU think that matters. It’s what THE LAW says. It’s what HE SAID. Polanski plead guilty to rape, and then ran off.
It ain’t about you.
If there had been no such judicial misconduct, it is highly unlikely that Polanski would have fled the country before the hearing.
Polanski had legal alternatives. He chose the ILLEGAL alternative. Time for him to man up.
And, by the way, you are an apologist for rape. That isn’t a personal insult. That’s a description of your behavior here.
If you think that’s an insult, you need to grow a thicker skin before justifying the immoral, illegal, and decadent behavior of a Hollywood director.
So, yeah, it’s as bad as you suspect it is.
I should have guessed, ‘fly, but I really couldn’t bring myself to read ALL of John’s verbal masturbation (thanks, Guns! And yes, John, that is an insult).
And I agree with Skyler: John is a member of NAMBLA.
Whoops! Sorry, John, yet another insult. I’ll try to restrain myself.
Ruh Roh! When Polanski looses the French, things ain’t looking good:
After French politicians across the spectrum initially voiced strong unease over the arrest, a government spokesman modified the official line on Wednesday, saying that Polanski was “neither above nor below the law.”
Heh! Good ol’ Allahpundit comes through again:
“Word on the street: Polanski’s next film is so good, the EU’s going to lower the age of consent to eight just for him.”
This might be John’s next defense of Polanski – it wasn’t rape, they were rehearsing a scene from “Lolita,” and Polanski was WAAAAAY into character.
Not one comment here interprets my statements correctly. Not one. But that’s OK. The internet doesn’t discriminate against non-readers. Nowhere in this blog have I excused Polanski’s behavior or said that he should go unpunished. My focus has been on the reason he was offered a plea bargain by the prosecutor and the reason he subsequently fled. I never said that he wasn’t guilty of statutory rape. I never said that he should have fled. I said that the judicial misconduct during his case would be viewed as a mitigating circumstance by the court should he be extradited. The puerile remarks here that I’m supporting Polanski or that I condone rape are fatuous. My focus has been on the legal processes, and you’re all waving your torches and screaming that he’s a rapist. Were you guys at the town hall meetings last summer? Sounds like it.
“Not one comment here interprets my statements correctly. Not one.”
Then the problem is on your end, not ours.
Well, in your case, just like the townhall meetings, blatant lies, mystification, and redherring logic on the liberal end. As to your stunning debut on the mutability of law? Pathetic. My post as of 5:44 did what you should have done to start with: Link to the relevant information. We don’t care to hear what you “believe” might have happened repeated…and…repeated.
Also, damn near every one of your statements that have be so harshly “misinterpreted”? Every single one is a rationalization as to why the current situation of his non-extradition is an acceptable position. Just because you don’t say it, doesn’t mean you haven’t repeatedly implied it. Scratch that, beaten it to death without saying it’s name. You’re a poor juxtaposition away from Clinton attempting to get someone to define the word “is.”
Have fun with that. By the way, this was my absolute favorite of your gems:
You didn’t say he isn’t, but because two sets of psychologists said he wasn’t, you don’t have to balls up and say he is. That’s great, only liberal logic allows you to have and also consume your cake.
P2L1: Have been, even. Damn quick flyin digits.
“Not one comment here interprets my statements correctly. Not one.”
‘Fly and Ebola put it well, but ponder this:
You have posted 19 times on this matter. Out of 97 total. I didn’t do a word count, but only a couple of the others ever came close to your original, ummmmm, essays in length, and one of those included a long cut&paste.
In other words, you sure do love to talk.
But you don’t say much. As Ebola notes, your content is little more than your rationalization of why you believe Polanski should get off scott free.
So it isn’t so much that we haven’t understood what you said. It’s that we don’t agree with your rationalization.
And that is indeed your problem.
John, you really are a piece of work.
Not one comment here interprets my statements correctly. Not one. But that’s OK.
It must be difficult being such an enlightened figure in these dark times.
The internet doesn’t discriminate against non-readers.
This from Mr. “By the way, several of you people need to learn that in an anonymous forum of this kind, personal insults are an idiotic waste of time.”
Nowhere in this blog have I excused Polanski’s behavior …
Hmmm, so this
isn’t you saying that the scheming little minx was a Temptress Who Would Not Be Denied, ‘cos you’re sure saying that the Prosecutor thought that and “took it into consideration”.
…or said that he should go unpunished.
Except that you’re completely against the idea of bringing him back here to be punished, natch.
Meh. I could go on but I’m tired and going to bed.
Dear Johnrj08: I appreciate your fervor in defending what
you believe in.I’ve been attacked on this site in the same way.But, Roman is scum;the
judge who backed out of the deal is probably also scum.
This was in LA,calif. that
is the most crazy La la land
in the USA.It is where the
dog Cerberos guards the gates
of Hell.
Hope to read your comments on other issues.