I am finally prepared to take a position on the Roman Polanski issue

[bluestateguy]

His actions on that day are not a gray area: a 44 year old man sexually violating a 13 year old girl (who would not be allowed by law to give consent anyway) is unquestionably rape. No ifs ands or butts about it.

He pleaded guilty, meaning that there is no issue of statute of limitations. I am a big supporter of statute of limitations in the law, even for very serious crimes, but it does not apply here. After a conviction, the statute no longer applies because the accused has either admitted guilt or been found guilty.

Mr. Polanski then took it upon himself to chicken out of serving his sentence by fleeing to a foreign country that would not extradite him.

Now, as a practical matter if Polanski had been convicted 31 years ago of robbing a liquor store (and nobody had been physically hurt), or stealing a car or selling drugs, then I would agree with the people saying give it a rest, let's move on and just drop the whole matter. But raping a child is not a crime that we can excuse under any circumstances. If we simply let Polanski go, then we are sending a message that people convicted of a crime of this nature can simply wait out the clock. Think of all the affluent "sex tourists" who go to foreign countries to have sex with underage children. Now imagine one of them being convicted of that crime (because it is a crime to use your passport for those purposes), and then using their money to simply flee to a country that does not extradite before they had to actually see the inside of a prison cell. A dangerous precedent could be set.

[elleng]

1. He served a sentence.

JUDGE then decided it wasn't good(bad) enough, wanted to look at it again. At the reopening stage, Polanski decided he wouldn't risk it.

[Hoopla Phil]

2. That's not how I've read it went down.

There was a plea agreement between the prosecution and the defense. Polanski got word that the judge was not going to accept the agreement (as is his/her prerogative) and skipped the country.

[madmusic]

7. Why do people keep saying this? The judge does not have that prerogative

When there is a plea bargain, the court can reject the agreement but it cannot change the terms of the agreement unless the parties agree. (People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 931; People v. Superior Court (Gifford) (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1333.)

[Bolo Boffin]

9. That doesn't give the guilty party the right to flee the country and escape justice. n/t

[madmusic]

13. dupe

[madmusic]

14. Didn't say it did. My post was about the plea bargain, not flight.

[Hoopla Phil]

30. Correct. Although some thing that the judges rejection of the agreement is grounds to flee.

[Hoopla Phil]

11. The judge DOES have the prerogative to reject the plea agreement and set a trial date.

[madmusic]

16. Moot point. That isn't what he was going to do. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

17. Um yes it was, and it is very relevant, if not why did YOU bring that point up?

[madmusic]

20. The judge was not going to order a trial. He was going to renege on the plea deal

And sentence him to much more prison time. A judge does not have that prerogative.

[Hoopla Phil]

26. A judge DOES have the prerogative to reject a plea agreement.

[madmusic]

33. Uh, isn't that what I posted? But he cannot change the terms of the deal and then sentence

If the judge doesn't want to accept the agreement, the only option is to reject it. Then the parties can work out a new deal the judge will accept or there will be a trial. In the mean time, all constitutional rights previously waived the defendant are returned, like the right to trial and to confront witnesses and present evidence.

[Hoopla Phil]

42. OK, here is what I origanally posted and your responce.

Me: That's not how I've read it went down.
There was a plea agreement between the prosecution and the defense. Polanski got word that the judge was not going to accept the agreement (as is his/her prerogative) and skipped the country.

You responded: Why do people keep saying this? The judge does not have that prerogative
When there is a plea bargain, the court can reject the agreement but it cannot change the terms of the agreement unless the parties agree. (People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 931; People v. Superior Court (Gifford) (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1333.)


So we agree? The judge does not have to accept a plea agreement. Polanski, upon hearing that his plea agreement was not going to be accepted skipped town/the country.

[madmusic]

47. We may agree, if by not accept he was not going to abide by the terms

The judge could reject the plea but Polanski has reason to believe the judge was going to sentence him to 40 years or something, far more than the time served he expected or the 16 months, 2 or 3 years provided for based on his guilty plea charge.

In other words, the judge was going to sentence him as if he plead guilty to charges he did not plead guilty to. If the judge was simply going to reject the plea, Polanski would have plenty of time to work out another plea deal or other strategies. No need to flee.

[pnwmom]

64. When you plead guilty, you agree that you understand that the plea

recommendation is only a recommendation and that the judge is free to accept or reject it. Usually, but not always, the judge will accept the recommendation. But is s/he doesn't, you're stuck. That's how it works in my state, anyway.

[elleng]

21. And the judge died!

[madmusic]

23. People do that. No one here gets out alive. nt

[elleng]

24. Right. And some story lines are complicated!

Took a while to unearth this! WaPo sure didn't have it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/movies/28polanski.html?pagewanted=2&sq=polanski&st=cse&scp=2

[Azathoth]

29. News articles I've seen seem to indicate the judge never approved the plea deal in the first place

The Poland-born Polanski was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape and sodomy, and faced up to life in prison. He pleaded guilty to one count — unlawful sexual intercourse — and spent 42 days in prison for diagnostic tests. Polanski was expected to be sentenced to time served, but he became aware that Judge Laurence J. Rittenband wouldn't approve the plea agreement and the director fled to France. The U.S. placed a fugitive warrant on Polanski in 1978.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090928/ap_on_re_us/us_polanski_case_1

[Hoopla Phil]

32. And that is part of why I think that all bets are off if Polanski comes back to the U.S.

[Thickasabrick]

40. If all bets are off and he didn't accept the plea, then there is no

conviction and the statute of limitations kicks in and there is no crime anymore.

[madmusic]

44. You sure? The statutes of limitations may toll if the defendant is a fugitive nt

[Thickasabrick]

48. Actually, not sure. Fugitive part I'm not very familiar with. I just

do not see how they could possibly reinstate the original charges without the victim's cooperation. I do not believe she would cooperate. If this does go to trial, her story of what occurred has changed over the years so that would be a huge issue too.

[provis99]

53. Correct. Statute of limitations does not apply to fugitives.

It only allows to people who have not yet been initially charged with a crime.

[madmusic]

39. But he planned on sentencing him anyway

To many more years that the agreement terms. Polanski could have won on appeal because the judge cannot violate the plea terms, but he probably would have sat in prison for 4 or 5 years while the case made it through the appeals process.

[Azathoth]

54. Polanski had pled guilty to a crime, so of course he was going to be sentenced

Why he entered a guilty plea before his proposed plea bargain had been formally accepted by the court (or why the court even accepted the plea for that matter) is a question that only his lawyer can answer. In any case, once the judge formally rejected the plea agreement, Polanski would then have had to request that his guilty plea be withdrawn (a request to which, as I understand it, the prosecutor would have agreed).

All of this, of course, is speculative, because Polanski never tried to withdraw his plea and the judge never got the chance to formally reject the plea agreement. Polanski, indignant and shocked over the fact that he might actually have to spend some time in jail for planning and executing the rape of an underage girl, ran off in the middle of the night...and all the bullshit we've heard about "the judge was gonna do this" and "the judge said that" and "the assistant DA later claimed he was giving the judge backroom handjobs" amounts to little more than fortune-telling and hearsay.

[madmusic]

57. That's not the way I understand it.

Polanski pled guilty to a charge that could get him 16 months, 2 or 3 years, but the judge planned on sentencing him to something like 40 years. That's why he ran. Whatever the actual number of years was, the judge was going to violate the plea agreement. I'd have to Google for confirmation though.

This is the problem with trial by media. Facts get lost.

[seabeyond]

67. then why are people saying it is 42 days time served. i understood was a 1-3 yr

term, but 2,3 yrs fine. and he was gonna give him a year.

then went to the oktoberfest.... and pissed judge off. you say no biggy. but a national case, judge is being lenient letting him do something and he is plastered on news enjoying oktoberfest a smack in judge face. suppose to be on the down low. you and i know that shit pisses off judges and only the arrogant would flaunt.

as much as we may not like the fact judge has that power over us, he does

but just clear up this part for me.

we are told 42 time served, i dont believe cause judge said would sentence AFTER eval (90 days). so sentence was not that time.

[pnwmom]

63. Yes, the judge can reject the agreement.

And without the agreement, the judge is then free to determine the sentence. But in this case Polanski fled before the judge could pass sentence.

[seabeyond]

65. mad music, you put up the case, but no info. where is the info that shows WHAT the plea agreement

is

i understand the agreement was dropping the 5 charges and leaving himi ONE to be sentenced on

[elleng]

22. Not quite. And the judge died.

'Mr. Polanski was initially indicted in 1977 on six felony charges that included rape, sodomy and providing a controlled substance to Ms. Geimer. He eventually pleaded guilty to one count of having sex with a minor but left the country after becoming convinced he would be sent back to jail after having a 42-day psychiatric evaluation in state prison.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/movies/28polanski.html?pagewanted=2&sq=polanski&st=cse&scp=2

[Hoopla Phil]

35. That's what I read also. I'm speculating that the judiciary will be a little

pissed about him skipping out and re-instate all the charges for a trial. Judges (in my experience) tend to take skipping out a little personally.

[elleng]

43. They may do that, but 'his' judge skipped out himself (kinda!)

I doubt they'd reinstate all the charges, but really don't know what they'd do. Might end up being a 'political' decision. AND they very well could consider his whole life. Wonder how many here are aware:

Mitterrand added that he was "dumbfounded" by Polanski's arrest, adding that he "strongly regrets that a new ordeal is being inflicted on someone who has already experienced so many of them."

Those comments referred, in part, to the fact that Polanski, a native of France who was taken to Poland by his parents, escaped Krakow's Jewish ghetto as a child during World War II and lived off the charity of strangers. His mother died at the Nazis' Auschwitz death camp.

Polanski worked his way into filmmaking in Poland, gaining an Oscar nomination for best foreign-language film in 1964 for his "Knife in the Water." Offered entry to Hollywood, he directed the classic "Rosemary's Baby" in 1968.

His life was shattered again in 1969 when his wife, actress Sharon Tate, and four other people were gruesomely murdered in Los Angeles by followers of cult figure Charles Manson. Tate was eight months pregnant at the time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/27/AR2009092700856_3.html?hpid=moreheadlines

[rve300]

3. I don't believe he was ever sentenced. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

12. Correct, and he never "served" any sentence. He fled the country.

[orleans]

18. except this:

"A judge ordered Polanski to spend 42 days in state prison for pre-sentencing "diagnostic testing." Polanski served the time and was released. But on the eve of his sentencing in 1978, he boarded a plane for Europe, never to return to the U.S.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski28-2009sep28,0,523154.story

[Hoopla Phil]

36. I don't understand. You do in fact state a fact but do not assign any context to it.

What is your point to the O.P?

[seabeyond]

68. and judge said would base sentence on 42 day (suppose to be 90) eval.

judge clearly said would sentence AFTER eval.

[EmilyAnne]

15. That is ridiculous. The judge wanted to LOOK AT IT AGAIN so he split? Give me a break. nt

[pnwmom]

62. He did NOT. He spent 42 days in a psychiatric facility having an evaluation.

He left the country before the judge actually pronounced a sentence.

[elleng]

76. Right, my mistake.

He believed judge wanted to 'ignore' his plea and thence try him and charge him heavily, so he left.

[Oregone]

4. Heh heh. You said, "take a position on the Roman Polanski"

Heh, heh

[tuvor]

5. What took you so long?

[bluestateguy]

6. That's a Washington press corps question

and not relevant anyway.

[tuvor]

10. It is indeed relevant, IMHO. You said you were "finally prepared to take a position."

I don't understand the apparent apprehension, that's all.

[A HERETIC I AM]

8. And I thought I had hidden all the Roman Polanski threads. Damn. n/t

[mwb970]

69. This isn't a thread, it's a bickerfest.

And a right dead boring one at that.

[orleans]

19. there's a documentary about him...

"But after the broadcast last year of the HBO documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," the director showed renewed interest in his case. The documentary portrayed the original handling of the matter as corrupted by a double-talking, media-hungry judge who had had inappropriate conversations with a prosecutor.

"Polanski fled the United States, according to interviews in the documentary, because Superior Court Judge Lawrence Rittenband, now deceased, reneged on a promise to sentence the director to no additional prison time after having a backroom chat with a deputy district attorney who was not assigned to the case.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski28-2009sep28,0,523154.story?page=2

[paulsby]

25. all other factors aside,

42 days is not a just "sentence" (calling it a sentence is a stretch) for what polanski did.

extradite his ass back to the US, give him a couple of years in the slammer, and move on

(.com)

[Thickasabrick]

27. You thinking it's not a just sentence is irrevelant...that was the deal

that was made and the judge decided to renege on it. All the attorneys were in on this deal. The victim's attorney's statement on the Larry King Show about how justice was not served that day (the day that Polanski left because of the judge), was the very reason the documentary was made about the whole sham this trial became.

The documentary does not excuse Polanski, it just highlights what a crock and circus this case became from a legal standpoint.

[paulsby]

34. and that's great

but judges CAN deny plea agreements.

and imo the plea agreement the prosecutors made with him was NOT in the interest of justice, and i applaud the judge for not agreeing to the plea deal.

and the documentary is ONE source. i would hope that your source for understanding this case is not JUST the "documentary". try reading the grand jury account. this is a PRIMARY source, not filtered through the biased eye of a documentary filmmaker

42 days would have been a travesty of justice. a miscarriage of justice.

[Thickasabrick]

37. Then in that case, Polanski should have been able to withdraw the

plea and proceed to trial. The only reason he agreed to plea was the agreement of no additional jail time. The judge then told one of the attorneys that he was going to sentence Polanski to 50 years or give him the option of deportation.

The judge was insane.

I've read the grand jury account and that is one side of the story. A grand jury testimony does not equate to a conviction. If that were the case, we wouldn't have trials or need witnesses.

By the way, the attorneys involved in the case at the time have agreed that the documentary is a very accurate account of what happened.

[paulsby]

41. i agree

he should have been able to withdraw the plea and proceed to trial if the judge would not accept the plea agreement

and when you say "the attorney involved in the case" are you referring to the prosecutor and defense or just defense? i have no idea which you are referring to.

here's my point. it's simple. it's clear that polanski raped this 13 yr old girl after plying her with alcohol and drugs. IF there was judicial misconduct on the part of the judge, then that should have been addressed. it should NOT mean that polanski gets a pass.

those are different issues.

[Thickasabrick]

45. I am referring to Polanski's attorneys and the victim's attorney.

It was my understanding that Judge Rittenbrand would not accept a plea withdrawal and was going to proceed with the sentencing. There were many reasons (mostly for the victim) they (the DA) did not want this to go to trial.

He even brought the attorneys into his chambers to coach them on how to proceed in the trial so he would look properly "tough".

Not excusing Polanski, but can't excuse this kind of crap either.

[paulsby]

46. ok, so great

you are not referring to the PROSECUTORS, when you say "the attorneys" involved with the case. iow, it's the opinion of her attorney and the defense attorneys both of whom would have no problem with polanski getting of scot free .

and again, i agree. assuming the judge did what you said, i am NOT excusing it. but i'm not excusing polanski EITHER.

he should do time. i would be satisfied with a year or two.

i'm a firm believer in giving people a second chance, once they 've paid their dues. heck, i've been very vocal about being pro-michael vick in the NFL, for example. he did his time.

and i'm hardly a "lock em up and throw away the key" type guy. i'm against the drug war, and think we have way too many laws anyway.

and i'm perfectly fine iwth probation or continuation w.o a finding for first offenders of many sorts (simple assault, theft, etc.) but not RAPE

but i don't cotton to guys who ply 13 yr olds with drugs and alcohol and then rape them.

sorry. doesn't fly with me.

[Thickasabrick]

50. Fair enough. I think he should come back and get it over with too

I sincerely hope it does not go to trial as I do not think the victim and her family could deal with it.

[orleans]

52. oh jesus christ! let's just throw everything out the goddamn window

and apply the LAW ACCORDING TO PAULSBY

"i would be satisfied with a year or two

"but i don't cotton to guys who ply 13 yr olds with drugs and alcohol and then rape them.

"sorry. doesn't fly with me.

spare me!

[paulsby]

61. hey, i wasn't advocating

the criminal justice system cater to my every whim... but... works for me.

[seabeyond]

66. it is from a tv show. why is this documentary factual info. it is said to be skewed to polinski

we keep saying our information comes from a made for tv documentary

doesnt that make us a bet stupid

[madmusic]

28. The "backroom chat" was about Polanski at the Oktoberfest

The deputy DA convinced the judge Polanski was making him look like a fool. All he was doing was sitting and drinking beer with people just like everyone else there.

[travelingtypist]

49. Yeah, I just watched it on Netflix online.

Couldn't help myself. Gawd, what a mess.

The victim was really clear about this -- she's done and wants this to all go away.

[Thickasabrick]

51. OT....how is Netflix online....many choices?

[travelingtypist]

56. So-so.

Lots of B-movies.

I've got a pretty good mail queue built up and when one of them becomes available for online play, it shows me, so that's cool. Some of my all-time favorites -- The Fugitive, Tango & Cash, Moonstruck -- have shown up online. I can waste a lot of time with it.

[madmusic]

58. It's streaming at Netflix for anyone who has it. n

Just saw travelingtypist already posted this, lol.

[snot]

31. If the trial judge erred,

Polanski's recourse, like any other suspect's, was to APPEAL. Apparently he didn't like his chances there, so fled instead.

Let's ask the 13-yr-old if she thinks justice has already been sufficiently served.

[Thickasabrick]

38. She has stated repeatedly that she does not want Polanski to do

jail time and wants this all to go away.

[proteus_lives]

55. Doesn't matter.

This is about the law not the victim's wishes.

The rapist belongs in jail.

[madmusic]

60. What if she called for a long sentence or the death penalty?

Would her opinion be worthwhile then?

[seabeyond]

70. i dont think so. i think it has been tried, recommendations are made, may influence

but no.... the victim does not get to appoint punishment, or the victims family

[proteus_lives]

72. No.

Her opinion at this point is moot. It's about criminal law.

She should feel that way and probably does. But she got a pay-off from Polanski and is keeping her end of the bargain.

[dugaresa]

71. she also got an undisclosed settlement from him and perhaps

by giving her that settlement (not sure how she got it court ordered, etc) perhaps she feels some sort of guilt that he would go to jail too.
There is also the mere fact that this opens new wounds for her.

[Old Hob]

59. It's a pissing contest between France and America now. France will give up pretty soon I'm sure.

[librechik]

73. yup--he needs to come back and be sentenced--maybe a different judge

will be more merciful, or maybe since the victim does not want the man to be punished, they will dismiss.

Although it was vindictive, I believe, of the LA prosecutor to go after him like this, it is the law, and respect for the law, especially among the elite, needs to be encouraged. If Polansky pays, maybe we have a chance with other VIPS who deserve prosecution so much more--like Cheney.

[Nye Bevan]

74. Oh, you Puritan.

OK, so he plied a 13 year old girl with Quaaludes and champagne and then raped her. Nobody is disputing that. But Polanski is a member of the politico-artistic elite and the rules are different for him. You need to suppress your primitive, puritan lust for revenge and adopt a more sophisticated, European view of the situation as the French have done.

Besides, he could not go to Los Angeles to get his Oscar. Hasn't he already suffered enough?

[Echo In Light]

75. POLANSKI!!!