I worry about our legal system more each day

[lastliberalintexas]

When even liberals are up in arms and calling for the tar and feathering of a criminal defendant who was screwed by a judge who, by most accounts, committed malfeasance in reneging on the plea, then I don't have much hope that the less enlightened among us will be able to see the bigger picture either. What Polanski did was reprehensible, I am not writing to defend his actions. But I am writing to demand that the government abide by the contract into which it entered with a criminal defendant, regardless of how powerful- or not- the defendant is. I am amazed at the people on this site who can't get past the bloodlust/vengeance response to see what's really important in this case.

The government is not supposed to get a pass on the procedures required of it just because the crime is a nasty one. Indeed, as many legal scholars have observed over the years, it is those cases in which we must be the most vigilant in demanding that the government meet its burden. In the Polanski case, the prosecution crafted a deal with a defendant in exchange for a guilty plea, the public was very, very much aware of the confession, yet the judge refused to follow through. Yes, I understand that judges do have the right to refuse to enter a plea, but it's a very incredibly rare occurrence. And when it happens, the judges are rightly scrutinized heavily because of the potential damage done to the defendant because of the allocution. My suspicions are that this judge wanted to make a career case, or use the publicity to run for office later, and I don't like his misuse of the bench.

This is not the only thing which causes me concern, it also bothers me how so many people automatically assume that an individual is guilty just because s/he has been arrested. Hell, I can't believe the people of today who think a mere allegation imposes guilt on the accused. An article on my local paper's website recently discussed an arrest of a defendant accused of another barbaric crime, and the posts following the article were downright scary. The posters had the accused tried, convicted and executed before an indictment had even been handed down. I don't live in the most enlightened area, unfortunately, but I guess I just thought reactions to heinous crimes would be more reasoned here.

Now, I'll likely be lambasted as a Polanski defender or a rape apologist. I don't care, it's happened before on here during the Duke fiasco. I was probably the only female poster arguing that the accused were simply that, and that even rich frat boys were entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. I also think that a plea bargaining defendant, rich famous director or not, is entitled to require the government to follow through on its obligations. Call me a 4th and 6th amendment apologist instead.

[Thickasabrick]

1. K&R....and thank you. Very well said. nt

[MadMaddie]

2. I think you have great points but

if poor offenders had the option to flee the country like Polanski did then I would say you have a point.

Regardless of what the judge did Polanski committed a felony crime and he confessed to it. Just because he didn't like what the judge did, did not lesson the weight of his crime. There are many criminals that have been caught 30 - 40 years after they committed a crime and they have lived exemplary lives it still doesn't erase their crimes.


I don't think you are a Polanski defender or a rape apologist because you are looking at the misdeed of the judge.

[TexasObserver]

3. Don't get in the way of the villagers when they're after Frankenstein.

The back story for the broken plea deal isn't interesting to many.

[Gwereeya]

6. Polanski isn't Frankenstein

He's Baron Harkonnen. Much worse.

[anonymous171]

4. Poor people get screwed all the time by our justice system.

But Monica Belluci does not call for their release.

[troubledamerican]

5. Don SIEGELMAN. Canary in the coalmine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Siegelman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor