BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA

Subject: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Rasener
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 07:16 AM

This gentleman who has admitted to having unlawful sex with an underage child, and as such although not tried and proven has admitted to being a Paedophile.

Mr Polanski's skipped bail 31 years ago in the United States and fled to France rather than be sentenced in a US court.

What we are talking about is the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl, one of the most serious crimes there is.

Why should somebody in his position flaunt the law. People like him should be locked up and the key thrown away.

I think he should be extradited and if found guilty put in the clink and if not already, be put on the offenders list.

Just becuase the years have gone by, does not mean that he shouldn't face justice.

Discuss

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 07:20 AM

My 2 cents:

He should be extradited because it is the rule of law, not because of emotionality about whatever crime he is accused of committing. IUPG, and all that, AND law is law.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 07:23 AM

No doubt he should be extradited, but I am curious, and suspicious, as to why they are only doing it now. From what one reads, he was in places where they could have done this, many times before, why wait till now?

JM

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Rasener
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 07:26 AM

Is it a case of money JM?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 07:28 AM

I read her entire testimony, and it sounded a rather sordid business to say the least. Polanski however was furious that his behavior had been criticised at all, as according to him, in Europe his actions would have been no big deal.

Another thing I found rather unsavoury was the fact he apparently raised her past, as some kind of defense his actions. She openly admitted in court to having had sex twice previously, but irrespective of that, she claimed to have repeatedly refused and attempted to avoid sex with HIM.

What I find offensive about Polanski's slur on her character, is that while a thirteen year old girl may experiment with peers (and they do), it doesn't necessarily mean that she is therefore automatically legitimate game for a middle aged man.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 07:31 AM

What Giok said.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: bobad
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 07:55 AM

Flout, not flaunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 08:13 AM

IMHO "statutory rape" (or, as less aggressive codes would put it "unlawful sexual intercourse") is considerably less serious than actual rape.

I am in little doubt that after all the intervening furore the sentencing will not be a fair process. I am also concerned that the as far as I know arrest was carried out in Switzerland because French law would not permit Polanksi's extradition. I am not clear why that should have been so but it worries me that that has been got round.

There was, however, the aggravating feature (if my memory serves me) that passivity (rather than consent) was obtained by surreptitiously administering a fairly powerful sedative.

As I recollect the conviction was properly obtained, and Polanski should therefore not in principle avoid sentence, but I do not see how a fair sentencing process can now take place.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: freda underhill
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 08:15 AM

Forced rape and sodomy with a 13 year old. I doubt that's acceptable in Europe or anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 08:41 AM

Freda, yes I doubt rape of minors is deemed acceptable, though we did have the Mandy Smith & Bill Wyman affair when I was young. She was thirteen but in an adult nightclub when they met & he did subsequently marry her - albeit briefly.

There was little negative comment on Wymans actions back then - something over two decades ago.
And I recall the newspapers at the time naming Mandy "Lolita". Though I think what was most telling regards presumptions about innocent middle age men being corrupted by seductive young girls (as earlier general attitudes of many of these situations seemed to deem it) I don't recall anyone at any point, terming Wyman "Humbert Humbert".

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 08:43 AM

Like John MacK, I am also puzzled by the timing... This guy has maintained a residence in Switzerland for many years and could have been arrested at any time during those years...

Yes, he should be arrested (and extridited) and...

...so should some justcie/law enforcement folks who allowed this to go on for 30 years...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 09:03 AM

Dear me.

There are really some people on the 'Cat who equate "Law" with "Justice" ?

Perhaps I'm getting too old for this caper.

Kindly do not interpret the foregoing as my condoning Mr Polanski's conduct.

As a former Law Tutor, I remember certain colleagues sniffing round the young women freshers, and others around the pretty boys.

But for the grace of god ?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 09:31 AM

There is already a thread on this subject going under name of "Polanski arrested" - at present only 5 or 6 below this one. Why has another been started? How confusing. Anyhow, can I cross-ref to a post I put on that one just this morning, about the artificiality of the concept of 'age-of-consent', a man-made, not a natural or god-given, construct. I also ref'd Wyman's difficulties in bringing his perfectly-legal-at-home wife here but being forbidden by our laws to get anywhere near her. How annoying to have to say it all twice — so I ask again, why a new thread instead of just contributing to the already-ongoing one?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: SharonA
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 10:25 AM

MtheGM: Joe or a JoeClone will probably insert the posts from this thread into the other one eventually. You're right, though, that there was no real need to start this thread, even if it asks a specific question about the subject matter of the other one.

To answer that question: Yes, he should be.

John says: "No doubt he should be extradited, but I am curious, and suspicious, as to why they are only doing it now. From what one reads, he was in places where they could have done this, many times before, why wait till now?"

Because there hadn't been an international warrant for his arrest until 2005 (I don't know the reason for THAT delay), and since then Polanski has evaded authorities. I read a statement this morning from authorities saying that this was the first time since 2005 that they had prior knowledge of when and where Polanski would be, so that they could be there to make the arrest. (He had gone to Switzerland to accept a film award.)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 11:11 AM

"What we are talking about is the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl, one of the most serious crimes there is." The Villan

"IMHO "statutory rape" (or, as less aggressive codes would put it "unlawful sexual intercourse") is considerably less serious than actual rape" Richard Bridge

"Why has another been started? How confusing. Anyhow, can I cross-ref to a post I put on that one just this morning, about the artificiality of the concept of 'age-of-consent', a man-made, not a natural or god-given, construct." MtheGM

I agree more with the responses above than I do with your statement, The Villan. I can think of a hundred - a thousand?- offenses more serious than this one. Would you like to rethink it? Keep in mind that a boy who is 18 and in a sexual relationship with his 16-year-old girlfriend is committing statutory rape.

Polanski's real offense, to my mind, was in applying his own standards to a young girl.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Rasener
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 11:49 AM

That was my mistake, I did look for another thread covering the same subject, but did not see one at the time.

I have no problem with it being merged

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: SharonA
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 11:50 AM

Don't forget that Polanski was originally charged with more than statutory rape. The plea bargain dealed it down to the one charge.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 12:17 PM

*IF we believe her*, it wasn't simply "statutory rape" (I agree that no eighteen year old young guy should be accused of raping his consenting fifteen year old girlfriend - that's just awful frankly and makes a complete mockery of the term), it was "rape" plain and simple. She refused him, but he manipulated her youth, and got her both drunk and sedated on recreational drugs, before sexually pressing himself upon her in a variety of ways - despite her repeated refusals.

Actually the scene she describes, sounded highly manipulative, premeditated and cynical on his part.

First he tells her mother that the pictures will be fully clothed.

Later when he gets her to the house, he shows the girl photos of French Vogue and (after plying her with booze) encourages her to take some topless shots - posing with glass.

He gives her a sedative, and tells her to get into the Jacouzzi so he can take some more shots of her there.
He doesn't take many pictures because "the light is fading", so instead he gets in starkers to join her.
When he starts to grope her, she resists and gets out.

She feels blurred and dizzy now, and he tells her to lie down in the other room. Which she does.

He joins her, and asks her if she's alright before kissing her, pulling her pants off and performing what she calls "cuddliness" on her. He then has sex with her and buggers her. All the time she say's "no" and she wants to go home.

I guess she might have been lying. But it sounds a highly plausible scenario of 'premeditated grooming' to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 12:49 PM

Legally, we have to forget those other charges, SharonA, because they were dismissed many years ago. And for very practical reasons, we all need to let go of the "moral outrage" that is so easy to vent in situations like this.

For one thing, contrary to the "lock em up and throw away the key" sentiments expressed by at least those of us who are Americans, California laws are remarkable spare--

California§ 261. 5(b)-(d) Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony and may be punished with up to one year in a county jail or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

For another thing, since he was never actually sentenced, it is possible for Mr. Polanski to retract his single guilty plea, which entitles him to a new trial, and may also require that new charges be drawn up, which may be legally difficult, if not impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: SharonA
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 02:00 PM

M.Ted: Good point, but Polanski didn't fulfill his part of the bargain by showing up for sentencing. Being afraid that the judge planned to renege on the plea agreement doesn't justify hiding from the law and failing to fulfill his part of the bargain for three decades. As the Villan says, he skipped bail. He was a fugitive. Book 'im, Danno.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: SharonA
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 02:13 PM

M.Ted: Trying to find an article that says the other charges against Polanski were "dismissed many years ago." Can you link me to a reference for this?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 03:43 PM

Polanski's version of the facts differed, and I need to retract my earlier statement that he was rightfully convicted. He was not in fact tried. He was induced to consent to guilt by a plea bargain - which the court then reneged on. You might think indeed that he was judicially raped. We do not in fact know whether there was actual rape. The victim said so. Polanski said not.

The only fair determination would now be a retial, but again I doubt whether it woul d be possible to assemble an unbiassed jury in any jurisdiction (the French responses seem quite unbelievable in one way, but the negative US publicity for decades wil lmake most US juries biassed the other way - and in any event I see no available judicial mechanism to quash the original verdict and have a retrial, ever since the dismissal in the USA of Polanski's motion to quash was denied on the absurd technicality that he was not there in person. THere does seem to be a case for the US judiciary to asnwer about how it has dealt with this case.

Polanski may or may not be guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 03:58 PM

I think this case (amongst others) possibly highlights the need to readdress issues, legally especially, around pubescent teens and the initiation of sexual activity.

For myself, I see no problem in lowering the legal age of consent amongst pubescent teens to say around fourteen, though with the core caveat, that consensual sex in such circumstances, be conducted between *peers* of roughly the same age only.

While pre & post pubescent children, have ever (and will ever continue to do so) experiment in a natural, curious and immature fashion in mutually consensual sexual play and indeed full intercourse, this natural developmental process aught not to be aggressively invaded by, or indeed be cynically abused by, much older adults with a particular fetish for pubescent or indeed pre-pubescent children.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 04:18 PM

With the seriousness of child abuse aside...

If it distracts the wing nuts from falacious health care lies or Obama hate campaigns, I"M ALL FOR 24/7 coverage of Polanski and Polanski perp walks and the Polanski trial. He's no OJ but cable news seems to be in short supply of news about nothing 24 hours a day , seven days a week.
If it doesn't get better soon, FOX might need to resort to throwing a kid down a well.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 04:30 PM

If the King of Rock, the late Mr. M Jackson had to face justice....(and was aquited)...why would Mr Polanski be above the law, regardless of the country where a charge was issued?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:23 PM

Because, if it be true, he was conned into a guilty plea and so did not get a fair trial.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: paula t
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:23 PM

He should be made to answer for his crime. The girl was 13 years of age and he was an adult. There is no excuse.Why should the time issue be an argument ? He ran away to avoid punishment.The fact that he's had a great life for all that time is not a good reason to get away with it now.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:40 PM

Richard Bridge--
If, as you assert, Mr Polanski was conned--and I'm not sure that assertion is even correct--he should have stayed and appealed to have the conviction and/or the accompanying sentence. If he truly is the victim of injustice, as he asserts, let him prove it in a California court of law. If he cannot, he should be sentenced for statutory rape and serve whatever sentence is deemed appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 09:12 PM

Richard Bridge: The judge did not deny Polanski's motion, he ruled that Polanski needed to be present in court in order to proceed. If Polanski is returned to California, he can proceed with the motion. In addition, he has other recourses, including withdrawing his guilty plea, which can be allowed if a sentence has not been passed.

I am not sure which thread you're following, SharonA, but the standard arrangement is that when you agree to plead guilty to a lesser charge, the other charges are dismissed, and can never be made again. As it stands, Polanski has been found guilty of only one count of unlawful intercourse with a minor. All the rest of it disappeared all those years ago when his plea was accepted--

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 01:36 AM

M.Ted, I'm no lawyer, but if a plea deal is abrogated by either party or the judge, are the other parts of the deal--i.e. the dropping of lesser or more serious charges--also abrogated? It would seem that the case would go back to square one, but the fact of a (unconsummated) deal can not be part of the subsequent trial. Can you clear that up?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Gervase
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 02:52 AM

It would certainly seem that he could withdraw his plea as the case hasn't gone to trial, so the process could start again from scratch.
On the face of it it would seem to be a sordid affair involving the drugging and sodomy of a child, so if he is found guilty he should be punished. Forget the fact that he's an 'artist' - had the act been carried out by anyone who then fled the jurisdiction of the courts one would hope that one day the legal system would catch up with him.
One wonders what lasting effect the incident has had on the girl - now a woman of 45.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 10:34 AM

I was very surprised a few minutes ago while talking to another lawyer to hear him argue that Polanski's cultural contributions outweighed his societal transgressions referred to in this thread.

He also pointed out that in many jurisdictions consensual sex with a 13 year old is not per se unlawful, and that in the USA there are states (his example was Tennessee) in which women can be married at 12, so if they can consent to sex inside marriage it is absurd to argue that they cannot consent to sex outside it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Michael S
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 11:07 AM

Last night, I posted this on the "Polanski arrested" thread. These threads are growing and should be combined.

I've been hesitant to add one more voice to this back and forth, but I'm so surprised at some of the things I've read here that I'd like to go on record.

Politically, I'm pretty much a leftie and often suspicious of authority and the US legal system.
I have great affection for artists.

The material facts here (meaning, the only facts that I think matter) are these:
Polanski was 44 at the time of the underlying event.
The girl was 13.
Polanski offered her champagne and a partial quaalude, which she consumed.
Polanski had sex with her.

I've looked, but I don't see that Polanski has ever denied any of these points.

Roman Polanski should be brought back to the US. He should be given whatever opportunity others get to seek to withdraw his guilty plea. If he fails, he should be sentenced.

He should be prosecuted for his unlawful flight.

Sympathy on account of unfortunate circumstances in his background? How about sympathy for every unfortunate ghetto dweller who's never caught a break in his life. Polanski is not Jean Valjean.

Elsewhere on the web is an opinion piece, with which I agree, which argues, in essence, that if Polanski were "Father Polanski" instead of "French film director Polanski," his only apologist would be his Archbishop.

-Michael Scully
--Austin, TX

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Royston
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 11:25 AM

I echo everything Michael S said.

Polanski admits to having sex with the girl.

He admits he knew the girl was 13.

Therefore he is a predatory paedophile and have should have served a sentence and undergone relevant treatment and rehabilitation.

If he admits to having sex with a girl he knew was underage then why should we think him "conned" into pleading guilty to exactly that charge?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 11:41 AM

SharonA commented, in part:

the judge planned to renege on the plea agreement doesn't justify hiding from the law and failing etc.

A judge is not bound by a plea agreement. That's worked out by the prosecutor with the defendant, and doesn't bind the judge. So the judge couldn't "renege" on the plea agreement; (s)he can refuse to accept it. And this would surely (assuming competent counsel, which I have no doubt Polanski had obtained) have been explained to Polanski beforehand, and he entered the agreement even so.

But I would agree with your essential thought, that the fear that the plea agreement might be rejected doesn't excuse his absconding.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 11:50 AM

In most if not all US jurisdictions, flight to avoid prosecution (or punishment in this case) is an offense independent of and in addition to whatever the antecedent substantive crime might have been.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 06:48 PM

When the day is done and justice is satisfied, George Bush still sits a free man. imo He has casued far more violence to children than Polanski.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 06:51 PM

John on the Sunset Coast--the prosecutor actually dropped all the charges but one against Polanski in the original plea bargain. That means that they don't exist any more. Your argument is the sort of thing someone might come up with if they wanted to reinstate the charges, but a judge would have to go along with it, and it would be basis of never ending appeals.

Charges can be reinstated when a defendant fails to comply with the terms of the agreement, but since Polanski entered a guilty plea to the lesser charge,he hasn't broken his end of the deal--it's the other side that's been accused of misconduct, if that is shown, their case, not the defendants, will fall apart.

As for you, Uncle Dave O, in point of fact, judges can and do participate in the plea bargaining process, and they have to do what they say they will do.

For the rest of you, Polanski pleaded guilty to the unlawful sex with a minor charge, which is a charge that is less than rape, in exchange for the prosecutor's agreement to drop the other charges. As it stands now, he can be sentenced only for that lesser charge, and, by agreement, he can't be charged with anything else related to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 08:18 PM

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 08:24 PM

I suspect the agreement can be dropped by either side,at the point it was at . By fleeing, I suspect the plea is null anyway. If this is so, all the former charges could be faced again in court....plus the fleeing charges plus possibly others related.    In most locals in the USA,at that point, a plea, or any information supplied to the prosecution would be inadmissable. But any new information supplied to enforcement, or other new information, such as public comments, could possibly be admissible in court....if it went that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: M.Ted
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 12:36 AM

How would a guilty plea be nullified by flight? Polanski stands convicted of one count of unlawful sex with a minor. As far as the other charges, they were dropped, and reinstatement is unlikely-- a cursory examination of California law, seems to show that the statute of limitations has run out.

Incidentally, though I have said it before, my feeling about Polanski is one of total repulsion.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 05:12 AM

Last time I checked California had a tolling clause in its limitation law. TIme does not run while the defendant is out of state.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 11:18 AM

M. Ted admonished me,

As for you, Uncle Dave O, in point of fact, judges can and do participate in the plea bargaining process, and they have to do what they say they will do.

I spent thirty-six years in the courtroom of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, and I reported above what went on, and what was stated from the bench as the law on the subject.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: heric
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 11:31 AM

I've been trying to figure out what potential sentence he ran away from. It's difficult. It looks, maybe just maybe, that he was facing 50 years prison max if he committed the act before 7/1/77, but only five years if he committed it after that date. M.Ted? Anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: heric
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 11:44 AM

Incident was March 10, 1977. I think it was 50 years. Still not sure, but it appears that if he could have controlled himself for 12 weeks it would only have been 5.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Michael S
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 12:09 PM

A few years ago, the PBS series Frontline did a TV show on the criminal plea process. Here's one part of the show's website. It confirms the usual rule, which allows a judge to ignore a sentencing recommendation tied to a plea. Dave O's experience in this regard is right on, and his comment here was 100% accurate as to the general rule.

I'm a lawyer myself (though not a criminal lawyer) and this is also my understanding. Lots of things can alter a specific situation, so we should be cautious of all the "legal absolutes" that are bandied about here. But speaking generally (the best we Mudcatters can do), there is always some risk that a judge will sentence as he or she wishes. I suspect that Polanski's undoubtedly expensive lawyers explained this to him before he pled guilty.

A judge should not engage in sentencing discussions with one party, alone. However, I would caution against accepting the claims of a documentary as the gospel truth in this regard, as to all pertinent matters. In any event, if these discussions occurred after the plea, the assignment of a new sentencing judge would probably serve as sufficient remedy for any harm.

Here's a pertinent quote from the website. Note the final sentence:

"What is a judge's role in a plea bargain?

There are a variety of different forms of plea bargaining and there are versions in which the judge has a relatively passive role, and in which most of the pressures are brought by the prosecutor.
. . .
In other forms of plea bargaining, typically called "sentence bargaining," the judge may have a larger role and can be the real driving force. The standards of judicial ethics vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and so judges are more involved in some places than in others. In many jurisdictions, the judge may bring everybody back into his office and sit them down and pressure them until the cases get worked out -- particularly judges who want to get cases off their trial calendar.
The judge always has the power to reject the plea offer negotiated between the prosecutor and the accused, and many judges will, if they don't think the sentence is severe enough, or for other reasons."

-Michael Scully
-Austin

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: heric
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 12:12 PM

Here is a long winded legalistic side of Polanski's story. His lawyer at the time now says the judge said in closed session he wanted Polanski to be sentenced to another 48 days in prison (after 42), waive his right to a hearing on that sentence, waive his right to a deportation hearing (which requirement may have been judicial misconduct), and voluntarily deport himself.

Polanski chose to voluntarily deport himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: heric
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 12:20 PM

. . . which seems a little strange. He could have gone to prison for seven weeks, signed everything, left, then contested the deportation waiver as an illegal componentin his sentence.

Maybe they thought the deportation waiver argument would lose (but it seems better to try that than to run away), or maybe they didn't trust the judge to keep the 48 day promise on sentencing day.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Michael S
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 12:33 PM

You know, I was too hasty in reading something I quoted above - the danger of casual legal discussion. The Frontline language I referenced says the judge can reject the "plea offer" itself. It does not refer to rejecting the sentence recommendation alone. I have egg on my cyber face and I apologize.

This language simply doesn't address the judge's power regarding sentencing alone, in a plea situation. However, I continue to believe that a judge has the power to reject a negotiated sentence while retaining the guilty plea. I also believe that if an improper communication took place after the entry of a plea, the remedy would be to bring in a new judge.

I welcome any truly informed comment in this regard. Actually, I welcome any comment, but I continue to caution all of us that the law is usually highly nuanced and the blunt "rules" cited here frequently miss the mark.

My take remains -- Polanski's conduct was scummy and criminal and he should be brought back here, allowed to REQUEST the withdrawal of his plea per whatever rules apply to all, and face the judicial system.

Michael Scully

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: heric
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 12:56 PM

I guess that December, 2008 Polanski filing I linked to above answers the "Why now?" question lol.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Michael S
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 02:12 PM

A friend sent me this:

"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.)"

I haven't read the cases and don't intend to (too little time). Someone will. They postdate Polanski's situation by 20 and 30 years but if this is what they say I suspect they reflect the law in the 70s as well.

I'm sure any criminal judge knew the law. Maybe all the judge was really going to say was "no deal, try the case, or try another deal." In that case, no foul to Polanski--he ran because he didn't want to risk a conviction. Maybe the judge WAS going to enforce the guilty plea but change the sentence in some obviously improper fashion. In that case, I believe Polanski would have gotten QUICK relief. There are vehicles for the system to act speedily.

The legal system is thorny, and it can make mistakes. Judges can be dumb or corrupt. But Polanski started this and he can't run when it's not working out and then say, "too late, I skate." Come back. You can't get relief as a fugitive.

Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: M.Ted
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 02:55 PM

I just read somewhere that I can no longer find, that in California, at least if a judge rejects the negotiated sentence, the defendant may withdraw the guilty plea. Also just read that a judge may reject and agreement, but may not alter it. Here is a page that cites some cases, related to Plea Bargaining

I have been reading the documents filed by Polanski's attorneys linked above, and also court transcripts of his plea hearing.   It appears that the dismissal of the other charges was to be made at the time of sentencing, and that after Polanski made his plea, there was an adjournment, so that a psychiatric hearing could be begun. Apparently the trial never actually ended--so I am completely lost on what stands and what doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: heric
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 09:08 PM

Dang now we've all confused ourselves so badly no one's got anything to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 09:50 PM

"How would a guilty plea be nullified by flight"

I was meaning to suggest that the plea agreement could possibly be null, because of the flight...if it was ever a concluded deal. Flight may possibly nullify iyt, because Polanski did not follow out his side....and face the court in a reasonable time,   The guilty confession (to lesser charges could also be nullified, making the full charges what he could face.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 01:46 AM

If the guilty plea is tossed out, then the state would have is to bring him to trial for the charges--since the victim does not want the case to continue, there wouldn't really be much to build a case on, though it may be possible for them to introduce her testimony from the earlier trial. Someone would have to read the testimony to the jury, however, and, having been involved in lawsuits where that happens, I can tell you that juries are not much impressed with anything that anyone reads to them that is much more than a paragraph long.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Michael S
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 02:11 AM

The amount of legal system misinformation that we (me included) have contributed to this thread boggles my mind. There was ample cause to charge the man. He ran away. Bring him back. Then we can watch it play out. My bet -- if the state gets him back to California, there'll be a conviction via the old guilty plea, or a new guilty plea, or a trial. But that's just my guess. Bring him back.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: GUEST,Colonel Redl
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 08:45 AM

Polanski could still avail himself of the 'traditional' European Gentleman's option
to do the right thing,
and retire to his study with a glass of brandy and a loaded revolver.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 10:26 AM

Legally, with statutory rape, it does not matter if the victim wants a charge to go forward or not. Because it involves a child, the courts are required to move forward on it, if they have ample evidence to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: 3refs
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 07:29 AM

The years don't erase anything!


I read the transcript of the girls testimony. I know what I'd do with him! You want to take that dance, you WILL pay the band!

I have lost all respect for Whoopi and anyone else who is trying to minimize this whole issue!

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: M.Ted
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 04:39 PM

Of course, we are all disgusted by what Polanski did, 30 years ago. But...

I am more disgusted by the fact that children are still being sexually abused on a monumental scale. And I am revolted by the fact that, by enlarge, the social services system, the justice system, and the educational system,all who are all supposed to investigate, mostly don't, and all the people who make such grand statements about what should be done with Roman Polanski never say, or do a thing about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: 3refs
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 05:10 PM

Here's case of the people who perhaps look down their noses upon those who deal with these people in a harsh way, and then get called the dregs of society. I'm an ex-convict and I know what we'd(I'd) do with him. Don't tell me about making a grand statements that I wouldn't back up! Straightened my life out a long time ago, but not to the point where I turn a blind eye or speak with a forked tongue.
Say what you want about the rest, but don't include me, I've handed out more justice to pedophiles and sexual offenders than most.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 05:13 PM

Since he seems to feel that sodomy with an unwilling child, that he intoxicated, is OK, why not subject him to the high points of the USA penal system....maybe he would see the light.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: 3refs
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 05:31 PM

Stockwell Day comments about Clifford Olson!

More than 10 years ago Stockwell Day created considerable controversy for saying child killer Clifford Olson should be in the general population of a penatenchery.

"People like myself say 'Fix the problem. Put him in General Population'". "The moral prisoners will deal with it in a way we don't have the nerve to do".

No truer words have been spoken! Let the convicts kill him, we haven't got the guts to! Once again, leave your dirty work up to someone else so they can keep their hands clean!

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: 3refs
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 05:38 PM

Once again(seems to be a habit), I apologize! I understand that most of you haven't been where I have, and I have a different way of looking at, and dealing with certain issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 05:42 PM

No need to apologise 3refs, I think there is a need to acknowledge on public discussion boards such as this, that not all members of the Western world have been raised in a safely innoculated test-tube.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Polanski be extradited to the USA
From: 3refs
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 05:52 PM

Thanks!
"I'd like to hold my head up and be proud of who I am
But they won't let my secret go untold
I paid the debt I owed them,but they're still not satisfied
Now I'm a branded man out un the cold".