French drop Polanski release call

[demoleft]

Source: bbc

The French government has dropped its public support for Roman Polanski, saying the 76-year-old director "is neither above nor beneath the law".

The move follows a backlash against a campaign for Polanski's release, with several leading European politicians and cultural figures refusing to join.
...
On Monday, the French foreign minister called for Polanski to be freed.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8283707.stm

---

ooops...

[Captain Hilts]

1. But folks here think we should just drop the whole thing...nt

[demoleft]

2. hehe, maybe they're right. or perhaps - let's just comment the news without flaming ;) n/t

[Captain Hilts]

3. Without flaming? That's asking far too much of many folks here...nt

[WriteDown]

4. Roman the Rapist....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20090930/cm_uc_crsesx/op_3911465

[demoleft]

5. i know i know.

the "ooops" was about france and its staggering position on the matter.
thanx for the link.

[Piewhacket]

6. the lynch mob seems to be forming up nicely...

[SpartanDem]

7. Yeah how horrible wanting an admitted rapist to actually do his time in jail

[proteus_lives]

8. Yeah, get in line.

And no cuts!

We have this irrational dislike of rapists.

[Zebedeo]

10. It's because we are

Puritans, you see. But some among us have risen above our base puritanical instincts. They see the true complexity and nuance in child rape.

[Forkboy]

11. I'm dying to hear the nuance in child rape.

[Zebedeo]

12. Well, it's complex

and we provincial Puritans may not be able to understand it. But it has to do with the sophistication and enlightenment of European mores. Why, did you know that the age of consent in many European countries is 13 or 14 or 15? So, since Polanski was originally from Europe, it is OK for him to rape a 13-year old. See? If you don't understand, you may not be enlightened enough.

[Forkboy]

13. I guess I'm not enlightened enough then.

Why, did you know that the age of consent in many European countries is 13 or 14 or 15?

Why yes, I did. Too bad for him it's not the age of consent here.

So, since Polanski was originally from Europe, it is OK for him to rape a 13-year old.

You tell me.

[mamaleah]

14. I never want to be so enlightened that I think a 40 something year old raping a 13 year old is ok.

I think I'd like to remain rather puritanical on that issue.

[Zebedeo]

15. Yes, me too.

even if I am accused of "moralizing it to death."

[Odin2005]

27. I have never seen so much sick moral relativist crap before.

It's disgusting, this defense of sick, evil, perverted, debauched behavior. :puke:

[mamaleah]

74. Now now.

You know that "morals" come from that oppressive patriarchal Judeo-Christian "nonsense" that says its wrong for a 40 year old to rape a 13 year old thereby repressing sexuality!

Did I cover enough of the bases?

[Odin2005]

77. LOL, you got it pretty much.

[msanthrope]

105. You forgot the "He a great artist, so he gets to rape" base. n/t

[EmilyAnne]

17. That 13-year old girl was lucky to be raped by such a sophisticated member of the creative elite.

I know she didn't give consent, but that's only because she was too young and stupid to understand just how sophisticated and European Polanski was.
She probably hadn't even seen Chinatown.


:sarcasm:

[hedgehog]

28. If one follows that line of thinking far enough, you can justify Thai immigrants

setting up brothels with child prostitutes. I mean, we wouldn't want to be Euro-centric or anything now, would we?

[Yuugal]

41. makes me wonder.....

.....how many people who are defending him on DU like to vacation in places like Thailand where they can be as "worldly" as this pervert.

[jenniferj]

96. Rape is a crime no matter what age the victim is...

I think most parents of 13 year old daughters would be disgusted if a 44 year old force themselves on them, even in Europe.
I think the French are rather disgusted at the idea that the world are lead to believe that Polanski's behaviour is acceptable by them. The support for Polanski by the French government does not represent France and that is why they backed off fast...

[Odin2005]

26. But those artists are so SUPERIOR and should not be bound by earthly morality!

It's BELOW them, don't you know? Morality is only for us uncultured snobs and our "Slave Morality". :eyes:

[WriteDown]

35. Awesome....

Love the sublime sarcasm.

[Zebedeo]

81. Thanks. n/t

[WriteDown]

83. It was perfectly put.

Its rare to see something so well worded on DU. Thanks for the chuckle.

[Odin2005]

25. Some of us, or people close to us, have suffered from rape, So...

...what you are calling "irrational dislike" is completely justified.

[Odin2005]

24. Yeah, because punishing a CHILD RAPIST is a lynch mob...

:eyes:

[Piewhacket]

31. YOU do not get to punish anyone. that is what a lynch mob seeks.

and they almost always get it wrong.

[Hepburn]

47. +1....n/t

[Hepburn]

48. So you agree with the statement of Larry Rittenhand that he made...

...at his all-white-no-Jews allowed Country Club about the up-coming sentencing of Polanski that he was going to put that "fucking Jew" in jail for life?

Is that your concept of justice? Just curious....

Edit for typo

[Odin2005]

70. Guilt by Association fallacy.

[TorchTheWitch]

95. allegedly made

It was not possible for Rittenband to sentence Polanski for life as the maximum sentence for the charge he plead to was twenty years (much more than today). Given that although the maximum sentence was a lot of years back then at that time not a single person sentenced for that charge was ever sentenced to even a single day in jail it's highly unlikely the judge would have sentenced him to that many years or any. The fact that he was even allowed to plea down to that one charge back then - such a thing could never have occurred today - it was a fucking sweetheart of a deal. Yet, he still jumped bail and fled the country.

If the defense felt there was any misconduct by the judge at that time, why the hell did they not only not say anything about it, why did they not do anything about it? They are required to defend their client to the best of their ability, and any judicial misconduct against their client they would be required to deal with within the parameters of the law... but they said nothing and did nothing until their client fled thereby reneging on any and all deals Polanski made.

Polanski knew when he plead guilty to the one charge that the judge could sentence him to anywhere between deportation or probation up to twenty years in prison. He also knew that even after the judge accepted the plea deal he could toss it out if he wanted to which would allow Polanski to withdraw his guilty plea as if it was never made, and the case would proceed on that basis. He knew all this and agreed to it before making his plea. Yet knowing this and agreeing to it and still making his plea, he jumped bail and fled the country.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html

[jenniferj]

97. If he had been an ordinary person he would have had the book thrown at him..

Polanski had expensive lawyers, the support of his industry and the money and connections to run away.... He has been able to live his millionaire lifestyle, feted by people that think he is misunderstood, so he could carry on working.

[JonQ]

61. Lynch mobs generally don't demand

a person return to the place where he committed his crime and serve the time proscribed by a court following a fair trial.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Piewhacket]

68. reviewing your posts... there is no doubt..

Sparticus, it IS you.
Quick, crucify the rebellious slave!!

got you in one post. two posts confirm. three remove any doubt.
you didn't even make it hard. you cannot stand up and remain hidden.
it is impossible for you.

one needs only look for a swordsman ritually placing the
final edge upon his weapon, testing balance and flexibility,
eying the blade for true, then bringing it forward to see if
any will dare strike it. A flashing dance returns the
blade to its scabbard. The ritual is old, and unmistakable.

[proteus_lives]

9. Good for France!

They've come to their senses.

[AngryAmish]

64. France never left their senses

70% of the French people wanted him to face justice. The elite just figured that the people were scum...

[proteus_lives]

65. Thanks for the info.

It's good to know.

And once again, the "elite" need a kick square to the balls.

[Dutch]

16. Good.

The French were seriously embarrasing themselves by defending this child rapist from prosecution.

[ShortnFiery]

18. Let's skip the trial and Hang em High right now!!!

I can't believe my fellow Americans. Self-righteous indignation only looks good in FICTIONAL action movies. In real life, it's glaringly transparent and ... well, an "ugly side of mob justice."

[EmilyAnne]

19. Wanting punishment for a rapist is self righteous indignation? That's crazy talk. Seriously.

Crazy.

[ShortnFiery]

20. No, JUSTICE is good - but more than a few of us thinks that some get their "jollies" fantasizing

about VENGEANCE.

Now that intense "obsession" with seeking-out vengeance, IMO, is not only disruptive but not mentally healthy for the individual nor a society. :(

[EmilyAnne]

21. I agree with you on that. The people who fantasize about someone being raped in prison or chopping

someone's dick off, etc. There is definitely something wrong with that.
Then again, its just vengeance fantasies.
Its pretty unheard of for people to track down, say, a registered sex offender and chop off his dick.
I'd rather people make really extreme comments about such things than actually form lynch mobs and go after people.

Right now, the real lynch mobs in this country are being formed against immigrants. Probably stoked by angry rhetoric.
So, maybe you are on to something. Maybe such violent rhetoric could lead to similar violence against rapists or sex offenders who have already served time?
Regardless, I haven't seen anything like this on Democratic Underground.

[ShortnFiery]

22. Extreme rhetoric promoting HATE, whatever the "just cause" only encourages those viewing

who are not "quite stable" to ACT.

No, the HATE must be tamped down - ON ALL SIDES.

[Piewhacket]

29. bravo, the virginian shows us the meaning of courage in the face of an angry mob.

well done, fiery one.

[whathehell]

40. What, in your opinion, is the difference between "justice" and "vengeance"?

Is it that the first seems "dispassionate" and the second "passionate"?

[Piewhacket]

44. no. try again.

[whathehell]

45. I'm not in a contest.

Go "try" your gonads.

[Piewhacket]

49. lol. ok then, so you don't know and don't care to know.... your priv..

[whathehell]

57. Lol....The only thing I do not know

is your opinion on the matter..I already know mine.

I can see you are "surprised" to learn that someone might not feel overly concerned with your opinion...Let us know when you return from your delusions of grandeur.:evilgrin:

[Piewhacket]

58. is the difference between "justice" and "vengeance". but that s not the real problem, is it.

the real problem is that the difference doesn't seem
to matter to you.

doesn't that worry you just a little?

[whathehell]

59. The real problem is I asked you an honest question

and you responded with a curt "no" and a cocky demand to "try again". Sorry, I don't jump through hoops for anyone.

No, I'm afraid you don't know how I feel about the difference between vengeance and justice, because you blew your chance at discussion by responding with a smart ass attitude.

Buh-bye:hi:

[Piewhacket]

66. ok, buh-bye

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vengeance_(concept)

[Hepburn]

50. My position on it is that the conduct of Rittenhand most certainly was not...

...in line with the concept of justice. Staging the sentencing hearing in chambers with defense counsel and the DA and, further, making the remark at his all-white-no-Jews-allowed L.A. Country Club that he was going to put that "fucking Jew" away for life to me is NOT consistent with the requirements of justice.

JMHO

[noiretextatique]

79. surely, polanski wasn't the only person to appear before this judge

i wouldn't be opposed to all of them getting new trials. of course that isn't likely, so polanski will just have to face his fate for raping a 13 year old girl.

[Theobald]

30. I don't see why we shouldn't considering the fact that you stepped right

up and pontificated about something you obviously know very little about. Polanski pleaded guilty, the trial is over, he skipped bail, and then got into a relationship with another minor.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[raebrek]

52. Calling out new posters?

You mean like calling them out and slapping titles on them like newbie?

Raebrek!!!

[Piewhacket]

72. you mean, like you just did? Oh the hypocrisy of neophites!

[raebrek]

54. and one more thing

Mr. Polanski fled the United States before his sentencing all those years ago.

Raebrek!!!

[Hepburn]

55. So what would you have done in light of Rittenband's conduct? n/t

[Piewhacket]

73. OMG. Somone who actually knows something that is true. Be still my heart!

[Hepburn]

53. What minor?

Are you aware that the laws on consent are very different in California versus some other states and countries? Because someone is not of the age of consent in the USA ~~ California in particular ~~ that does not mean that he/she is not of the age of consent in another jurisdiction.

And, btw, there are US states that provide that minors ~~ someone under the age of 18 years ~~ can consent to sexual acts. There are lower age limits, like the age of 16 in other states. In France, in fact, the age of consent for a female at one time was age 13 years. I believe it has been raised, tho.

So let's be clear, OK, minority in some jurisdictions is not the age requirement for consensual sex.

:hi:

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. In what jurisdictions is it permissable to drug someone and force them to have sex?

You might wish to read the transcripts of the victim's sworn testimony at the time.

Mr. Polanski, great film director that he is, needs to be returned to the States and and serve such sentence as
Mr. Polanski the plumber or baker might recieve for the crime he pled guilty to.

Yes, he should be held in protective custody- but serve the sentence nonetheless.

[Piewhacket]

75. The poster was referring to some other minor. Do try to follow the points of discussion?

otherwise people might begin to take you, not for a
friendly iconoclast at all, but for for an old, deaf and
blind iconoclast with tourette's who leaps into
the air shouting bizarre things at inappropriate
times.

:hi:

[friendly_iconoclast]

82. That was Nastasja Kinski, who was 15 at the time

Feel better now?

[Piewhacket]

85. It was hepburn's question, not mine.

and if you had read her post you would understand
location was important.

so where did this supposed 'relationship' occur?
seems to me it would have been europe where
age of consent might be as low as 13-14.

do you have any reason to claim the relationship
was improper? please take care with your answer.

better yet, answer hepburn, it was her question.


















better still, answer hepburn.

[Theobald]

101. Is this your attempt to make excuses for a child rapist?

So you can be a child and consent to sex with an adult in certain jurisdictions so it is somehow ok to drug and rape a little girl anywhere?

I realize that the age of consent is different in many states and that it is differnt in many countries. I also know that the age of consent in France is currenlty 15 and was the same when Polanski fled there in 78.

Are you aware that in most states minors can consent to sex with someone, but that person must be within a certain age range of that person. So an 19 year old can have sex with a 16 year old and a 12 year old can have sex with a 10 year old, but a 40 year old can not have sex with a 13 year old, no matter how consenting they are.

So let's be clear, you know some stuff, but your knowledge is limited and your pontificating comes across as defending someone who drugged and raped a 13 year old.

[msanthrope]

107. You are right--after this, he started seeing a 15 year old. n/t

[hugo_from_TN]

32. He's already had a trial - Guilty

[Piewhacket]

34. that is in doubt.

[WriteDown]

36. Uh...

No its not.

[Piewhacket]

43. duh...

[Xithras]

39. No, it's not in doubt.

Polanski may feel that it was unfair, but there is no question that he was charged, tried, that he plead guilty, and was convicted. If he believes that his treatment was improper, he can file an appeal just like any other citizen who believes that they have been treated unfairly.

Lets make one thing clear. Polanski plead guilty because he'd worked out a plea bargain with the prosecutors office that would have earned him a slap on the wrist punishment (a psych evan and probation). Judges are not, and never have been, bound to follow plea bargains agreed to by both parties. They usually do, but there is NO requirement. In this case, Polanski's judge made a statement that he would be sentencing Polanski to prison even despite the agreement, so Polanski fled.

He may consider it unfair, but there was nothing illegal or improper about what the judge did. Punishment is ALWAYS at the discretion of the judge.

[Piewhacket]

42. it isn't really about whether polinski thinks what happened was fair.

they scream, they rail, they flail, they blast out page
after page of bile and vitriol,

so wrapped up in their advocacy, so intently focused on their cause,
but in the end, they fail to spot or address the problem, the issue.

yet on they go, erecting and knocking down strawman after strawman,
as though sheer numbers and volume would justify their view.

so sad.

remember orly taitz? she's up for $10,000 sanctions.
did you understand why?

so sad.

[Theobald]

102. Why should I care that a child rapist doesn't think that his sentancing is fair?

[Piewhacket]

109. Why should anyone care what you care about? Its not about you.

If you don't care, you don't care. Who cares?
No one is trying to convince you to care about
whether the justice system is functioning correctly.

But for someone who doesn't care you seem
to act pretty threatened and defensive around
those trying to discuss it. Why is that?

[Theobald]

111. Who said I didn't care?

Of course I care. Polanski plead guilty to having sex with an underage girl. He fled the country before his sentence could be imposed. I think he should go to jail for fleeing the country and for having sex with a minor.

What I said was, quite clearly I might add, that I don't care, and nobody else should care, what Polanski thinks about it. Polanski pled guilty to child rape and I think the evidence clearly shows that not only did he have sex with a minor, but that sex was not consensual and that he drugged her in order to make her more submissive and less likely to stop his unwanted advances.

And yes it is about me. It's about me because letting child rapists go free encourages other potential child rapists to do the same thing. Now, I am not a child, so they can't hurt me, but they could potentially rape one of my nieces or nephews, so yes I believe this is about me to a certain, albeit indirect sense.

[Piewhacket]

114. wha?? what grade are you in?

round you go in nonsensical circles.

I post:
" it isn't really about whether polinski thinks what happened was fair. "

in response U post:
"Why should I care that a child rapist doesn't think that his sentancing is fair?"

(twilight zone music plays.)

U said:

"Polanski pleaded guilty, the trial is over, he skipped bail, and then got into a relationship with another minor."

Hepburn replyed

"What minor?" and explained the age of consent in various jurisdictions

U replied (without identifying the minor you mentioned, who was probably not a minor)

"Is this your attempt to make excuses for a child rapist? "

(twilight zone music plays.)

a dozen others. so now we have to ask
what grade are you in?

[Hepburn]

56. It seems to me that there was NO trial...

...care to square your allegation regarding a trial with the FACT that the defendant pled out on one charge ~~ stat rape.

[rayofreason]

60. Here is what the defendant admitted to doing...

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/celebrity-gossip/2009/09/29/roman-polanski-original-trial/victim-samantha-geimer-transcript-he-put-his-head-between-my-legs.html

Sorry. No excuses, contributions to art, trauma from the Manson murders, bad behavior by a Judge, or anything else gets Polanski any kind of a pass on this. Convicted, he should serve his time. Period.

[Hepburn]

62. Irrelevant to my question to you: When was there a trial? n/t

[rayofreason]

67. Actually, you did not ask me a question...

...I just posted a comment relevant to your comment about Polanski's admission of guilt. No one, not even Polanski, disputes that he admitted to the crime and was convicted.

So it seems to me that the question you have posed (to others) is irrelevant.

[Piewhacket]

78. 'scuse me... Are you under the impression that

Polanski plead to a tabloid NEWS article which was published today
and which had nothing in it about the plea?

Oh, please reassure me you understand the difference between a
plea and a news article.

And how do you know what Polanski does or does not dispute?
Where do you get this stuff, from the tabloids? or somewhere else?

[tammywammy]

84. Here's the transcript from when he pled guilty.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html

[Piewhacket]

86. Great, byut why give it to me. Give it to rayofreason, he seems be be confused about pleas.

[Piewhacket]

87. Give it to rayof reason, he's the one confusing pleas and tabloid articles, not me.

[rayofreason]

91. I'm not confused.

Regarding "pleas and tabloid articles" - I never said anything about pleas. I just said Polanski admitted what he did and he has been convicted of a crime. All statements of fact that you seem to find somehow confusing. So let's go over it one more time to see of you are still having trouble with facts.

The "tabloid article", as you call it, contains the transcript of the testimony of the victim. Read it. Not too confusing, right?

Polanski admitted he did what she said - gave a 13-yr old girl champagne, qualudes, and had anal sex with her. Not too confusing, right?

So what else is there to talk about?

Oh yeah, what there is to talk about is how unfair it is that he was arrested, what a shame it is to hound such a great artist, how the lynch mob is getting geared up, how it really wasn't "rape-rape", whatever Whoopi meant by that (I guess that the wisdom of Guinan was only in the script). Not too confusing, right?

Oh, one more thing to talk about: How so many people (including the French people!) are royally pissed off that the Hollywood elites and their counterparts in other countries somehow think that poor Roman Polanski is a victim in all of this.

Not too confusing, right?

[Piewhacket]

104. well actually.... you still don't seem to know the difference

between a plea and a tabloid article,
between what you said and what you didn't say,
between a fact and a complete fabrication.

i mean, what are people supposed to think of you?

Polanski plead to the plea, not to the tabloid article
published yesterday as you stated.In addition, nothing
in the plea related to anything you claimed he plead.
Your claim is a fabrication. A lie.

then this was brought to your attention,
you just repeated your false claims.

so i was thinking you were just "confused" about this stuff,
but you could be "stupid" I suppose, or perhaps just a plain "liar".
I was just being generous with "confused", but if you
prefer some other term, say so.

[WeekendWarrior]

89. Sorry, this is NOT what the defendant admitted to doing.

He plead guilty to unlawful sex with a minor. He claims it was consensual. That doesn't make it much better, in my book (is a 13 year old is mature enough to consent?), but what you're reading in the linked article is what the victim testified to at a Grand Jury proceeding, NOT what Polanski plead guilty to.

[rayofreason]

94. Correct.

A plea bargain was reached. The girl's lawyer make reference to "other serious charges" that would be dropped.

The transcript is here, including the lawyer's letter.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html

But there is little doubt that he did exactly as the girl's transcript states. That is why he cut the plea deal.

[WeekendWarrior]

99. I think there's all kinds of doubt

Just because a defendant cops a plea, doesn't mean he did all the things he is accused of. It comes down to who will believe whom? I happen to believe the girl -- and I'm sure Polanski's attorneys told him that's how most people would feel, so he copped a plea.

That still doesn't make it a fact.

The only reason I keep arguing this is because I think it's REALLY important that we know how the law works -- because it applies to ALL of us.

[Piewhacket]

108. well said.

plea agreements are problematic, they are illegal in many places,
are a common source of miscarriages of justice, and have various
other serious problems. They are legal in the US as a "necessary evil"
to keep the courts moving (and the prisons full).

They are meant to dispose of cases irrespective of truth, and often
innocent people are coerced into (falsely) pleading to a lesser charge
to avoid the risk, expense, and trauma of trial on greater charges.

here, the plea deal was made so the victim would not be put through the trauma
of testimony and being challenged. I'm not guessing, its stated right there in the
case record. is that the only reason for the plea? the claimed reason for the plea is
rarely all that is going on. sometimes they are made when the prosecutor has
a serious problem in the case (which he has not yet disclosed to the defense).

in making a pleas the defendant is generally obliged to "lie" about some
things that are recited. the recitation is intended to strip the defendant of
of rights, irrespective of the truth of it, and place him in the power of
the judge for disposition of the case.
BUT OF COURSE he has been promised stuff, that's why he plead. duh.

notwithstanding the "recitations" in the plead, or deals witht he DA,
a defendant has an expectation and a legal right that his case will be handled
as other cases, that he will not be singled out for abusive and exemplary
treatment by the judge, but the case will be disposed as is done in ordinary
cases of the kind.

The pleas is, of course, a trap, and no defendant would or should do it where
the judge has a reputation as an abusive and lawless asshole. In that case
there is no downside, go to trial. The only thing that keeps plea bargains
going in the US is the integrity (ie honesty, personal
honor) of the courts, the DAs, and the defense lawyers who handle the cases.

When the judge apparently indicated he would depart from the expected disposition,
the defendant fled his jurisdiction. That's an additional crime, btw, for
which the defendant may (will) be charged.

[WeekendWarrior]

110. You also have to keep in mind that

Prosecutors almost ALWAYS overcharge. In a clear manslaughter case, for example, they will charge murder. In a simple assault case, they could well charge attempted murder.

They do this for two reasons: 1) to scare the shit out of the defendant and get him to plead to a lesser offense; and/or 2) in hopes of getting a conviction of the greater charge and, as a result, upping their stats in the office.

Criminal law is often more a game between the prosecutor and the defense attorney than it is a search for the truth. And knee-jerk reactions to the charges -- as we've seen here on DU -- are EXACTLY what the prosecutor hopes for. It helps him win his case. Which, in the end, is all he really cares about.

A TRUE prosecutor, working for the people, is supposed to only prosecute cases in which there is a clear case of a crime being committed. He is the first judge, who must evaluate the evidence and see if there's enough there to accuse and convict a person of that crime. If the evidence ISN'T there, he's supposed to step away until it is, or just completely decline prosecuting the case altogether.

Unfortunately, many prosecutors don't follow this mandate and couldn't care less about justice and fairness. The sometimes manipulate the truth in a way that makes the defendant LOOK guilty, even if the evidence doesn't really back this up. In other words, they're a lot like politicians.

And to be fair here, defense attorneys aren't much different.

I can see two possible scenarios in the Polanski case.

1. The girl has sex with him willingly, but when she was overheard telling a friend on the phone and her mom found out, she made up a forcible rape/drugged story to get sympathy and escape blame.

2. That Polanski drugged the girl and forcibly raped her, just as she testified, and he's lying when he says it was consensual.

We have a choice of believing either scenario. But Polanski's plea in court does not and cannot tell us which one of these scenarios is true.

I think it's rare, however, that a prosecutor will accept a plea if he thinks he has the evidence to convict on the greater charges. So you have to wonder if the prosecutor felt the girl's testimony was enough to convict someone of Polanski's stature. Hard to say.

Then again, it's also possible that the prosecutor simply had a heart and wanted to follow the family's wishes to keep the girl out of the limelight.

Either way, none of US can possibly know what truly happened other than that Polanski had sex with a thirteen year-old girl. And that, to my mind, is bad enough.

But I firmly believe that he should only be punished for the crime he was convicted of, whatever that punishment is under the law. And if he faces further charges for fleeing, then so be it.

[Piewhacket]

113. well done, mighty warrior. we agree completely. additionally

Punishment of crime is reserved to the state alone, and
actions or attempts by individuals to inflict extrajudicial
punishment on the accused are themselves crimes.
Some here in DU should take note of that.

nonetheless, even when protected from the mob
the person accused of crime must face an awesome array, the naked
power of the state. This while armed only with some basic
rights to fair proceedings, an advocate who works on their behalf
instead of for the state, and the obligation of the prosecutor not
to seek just conviction, but to seek justice in the case.

but even when it works perfectly
it is a very one sided contest. conviction rates tend
to 95-98%. Yet even former AG Thornberg (R), has admitted
that as many as 20-25% of those in federal prisons may be
actually and factually innocent of the crimes for which they
were convicted. it is an appalling admission in light of
the ethical duty of a prosecutor. but AG Thornberg said it with
straight face, and with no apology. I know, I watched him say it.

and when all breaks down? when the prosecutor is ambitious or
corrupt, the judge biased or abusive or dishonest, the defense
attorney incompetent or just plain sells his client out? what then?
how good is the system of justice then? what good is it to anyone?

why not just round up people at random, to fill the prisons.
or select only DUers, those radical scum deserve whatever they get! right?
what difference between that and the broken system?

yet despite this travesty of justice, this ADMITTED oft broken criminal justice
system, still the mob howls for the blood of the accused. even
before the facts are established. based only on the inflammatory
accusation. even in the face of a plea they howl. they don't care
to understand anything, even the meger established facts.
where is their reason? it has fled before the howling.

thus all sense of proportionality also disappears, the law itself
becomes perverted, the man who steals a pack of cigarettes must be
imprisoned for life, the one who steals bread to feed his family
must have his arms severed. The law in its majesty must forbid the
sleeping under bridges and begging in the streets, the smoking
of pot, cocaine gets a pass while crack is a scourge. The lie must
triumph over truth. The prisons must fill! The mob must be appeased.

Yet even in the face of this abomination, there are many, even here in DU,
who refuse to recognize and actually degrade the right to a fair
process in prosecution. They say they do not care whether the law
is obeyed. We might ask them if if they care if the law is obeyed
in THEIR case. but they do not even answer that, their reason has
fled. only the howling remains.

There is but one weapon against this beast that crouches on all fours
and howls. To turn a mirror upon it until it simpers in pain,
transfixed by the horror of its reflection.

Its not a great job, not even a safe job, and the pay and benefits
are pathetic. yet someone must do this dangerous task of turning
back the beast. so we drew straws, and I chose not wisely.
now here i stand nearly lost in a sea of howling. a few others, brave
heroes holding up their mirrors, so few, stand nearby.

oh great warrior, mighty warrior, it is a hard and harsh world we
must stand in. but at least some of us may stand in it upright.
excuse me, i must return to work.

COME HITHER, OH HOWLING BEAST, GAZE THEE DEEPLY INTO THE MIRROR!
MIRROR MIRROR, SHOW WHO IS THE GREATEST EVIL.

[TorchTheWitch]

117. plea bargains always benefit the accused

Having the choice to not be tried on all the charges and bargain to throw out the worst of the charges by pleading guilty to the lesser benefits no one but the accused. Whether or not an advantageous plea bargain is accepted has everything to do with how much the prosecuter believes that a charge of guilty is likely for one or more of the worst charges at trial. The accused always has the choice to go to trial and take their chances there and not accept any plea bargain that may be offered.

To imagine in the Polanski case that being allowed to plea down to the one single charge of sex with a minor was not extreamly advantageous to Polanski and he was somehow coerced into such a sweetheart of a deal that would not be possible today is sheer flaming idiocy. The only reason the prosecuter in this case agreed to the deal was because he could not get the victim to testify willingly. Since this was a case that boiled down to "he said she said" (aside from the one charge plead guilty to since there was physical evidence concerning that charge) the likelihood of Polanski being found guilty on the other charges was slim. How would it NOT have benefited Polanski to plea to the one lesser charge that historically at that time no one found guilty of that charge faced a single day in jail and have all the other charges dismissed as if they had never existed? Polanski would have done cartwheels in joy that the prosecuter agreed to such a gift of a deal.

[WeekendWarrior]

88. He didn't have a trial. He entered a plea.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dorian Gray]

51. He already pled guilty

then fled incarceration before his full sentencing took place.

[msanthrope]

106. We will skip the trial--Polanski already pled guilty to raping a 13 year old.

Now, he still gets a trial on the flight charge.

Federal time. He'll serve more time in prison for the flight than for the rape.

[jenniferj]

98. The French are embarrassed by their government.....

n/t.

[Odin2005]

23. Good.

[SIMPLYB1980]

37. Good for the French.

I wouldn't want to be a apologist for a child rapist either.

[rayofreason]

69. Polanski's latest!

Hey, I hear that Polanski's newest film is going to be so good that he gets to rape (not rape-rape) an 8-yr old. Really, its THAT GOOD!!!

[Flagg]

76. You people neeed to chill the fuck out

Seriously.

[rayofreason]

93. Why?

As long as there are folks who defend Polanski openly there is still something to be said.

Of course, over time the Hollywood types will stop publicly defending Polanski, and reaction will stop, but the attitudes that support a defense of Polanski will still be there. This is one of those rare moments of clarity that strips away the veil and lets us see things as they really are. To some, being "cool" is more important than anything else. And in that "cool" world people didn't realize that supporting Polanski would prove problematic

Not too pretty, is it?

[WeekendWarrior]

90. WTF?

[rayofreason]

92. Sarcasm...

...or a window in the mindset of Polanski defenders.

Take your pick.

[Piewhacket]

116. or a window into your own mindset., Mr. Freason.

[Piwi2009]

80. What steaming piles of bullshit people come up with to defend him

I guess it just doesn't seem like rape when Polansky does it, since it was a kid and he looks like a puppet.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nye Bevan]

121. Sacre Bleu!

Watchez votre language, jeune homme.

Le nouveau McDonalds dans le Louvre- formidable, n'est-ce-pas?

[Flagg]

123. Surrender jokes are as offensive to us the French as 9/11 jokes are to Americans.

McDonalds in the Louvre ?
More proof of French anti Americanism.

Unfortunately some people will use this to insult us yet again.

[Titanothere]

103. Impressed with the responses to this

The guy knows he's guilty or he would have come back to face the music a long time ago. American's don't tolerate people raping our children.

By the way, what on earth was a 13 year old doing alone in Jack's house with this dude and what was Angelica Huston doing during this time? Supposedly she was there, thanks for looking out ... not.

[closeupready]

112. Actually, with regard to Huston, I don't think that is necessarily a fair assumption.

First of all, Huston may or may not be fit or even willing to serve as a child's guardian, and she should not be burdened with that responsibility. This was Jack Nicholson's house, and while I don't know what kind of house it is or was, if it was large, Huston very well may have been in another wing, on the phone, watching TV, who knows. Seriously, who knows what she was doing, where she was, if she was told by the girl's mother or even Jack or Roman what was up.

So I don't think it's fair to attack Huston - attacking her is simply a smokescreen to diffuse responsibility and focus.

[Piewhacket]

115. maybe, but it does raise some questions.

[BrightKnight]

118. The Sharon Tate murder buys him some sympathy with me.

His 8 1/2 months pregnant wife was stabbed to death in back, breast neck and womb. I don't know where my head would be if the Manson blood bath happened to my wife in my home.




Nothing excuses drugging and raping a 13 year old girl but I am sure that his compass was still spinning at the time.

[Nye Bevan]

120. How DARE the French Government join the LYNCH MOB

OK, so Polanski plied a 13 year old girl with champagne and Quaaludes and anally raped her. But he couldn't go to Los Angeles to collect his Oscar in person! Hasn't he been punished enough? And it may have been rape but it was *obviously* not "rape-rape". Just read the testimony.

[Lagomorph]

122. Letting Polanski off the hook is declaring open season on young girls.

It appears he never settled the lawsuit and skipped the country to avoid sentencing.

This would have been over long ago, except for that.

He milked it for all it's worth. He loved the reputation that being a fugitive from the "Damned Americans" brought him.

Regardless of what the girl did to get past her rape-rape, we owe it to every teenage girl in America to nail his pervert ass.