Roman Polanski Arrested

[LA Ute]

Yes. And had he never left the US, he would have been out of prison very quickly, anyway. So either way, what does it matter? Other than the moral victory, I guess.

I think you are close to correct, but we disagree on the importance of the legal principle involved. He committed a crime against the state, not the victim. The case is People v. Polanski, as you know. When he decided he might be looking at some prison time, he could have withdrawn his guilty plea and presented his case to a jury, and he could have appealed a conviction. Instead, while free on bail, he fled the country. I think it's a very bad thing to just let that go. If he comes back and faces justice, and the sentence is he has to speak to 50 high school student crowds about obeying the law, that's fine with me. We have to take the rule of law seriously, and this case is so high-profile that I think it's especially important that we do that.

Besides, this whole thing gives guys like me something to yammer on about.

[falafel]

I didn't say he was "punished" in the traditional sense of sitting in a cell. Our judicial system serves various purposes....punishment is only one of them. Rehabilitation is another. Public safety is another. Polanski's absence does little by way of traditional punishment. Although I would submit that not being able to visit the grave of his slaughtered wife is definitely a negative (perhaps you can opine on whether this is emotionally traumatic or no?). Also, not being able to come to the US is definitely punishment in a professional sense, given his occupation.

Polanski's absence simply serves to keep a criminal out of the United States. It goes more to public safety. Not really much different than deporting known criminals out of the US. We don't house them in our jails and sometimes they go free once they return to their country of origin. But that is ok as long as they are not in the US. Polanski's case is more along those lines.

There is no rule that all criminals need be "punished" in the sense that they have to feel suffering and pain. Sometimes we simply deport criminals.

The victim's stance goes far beyond just not wanting to be dragged into the spotlight, although that is definitely a big part of it. You keep discounting her expressed intentions....she has forgiven him. She says he has already paid for his mistake. No matter how much you dance around that, the fact still remains. She has moved on.

The bigger question is why you folks can't move on.

lol - you folks cant move on. If you've moved on, why are you posting in this thread?

Lots of problems with what you wrote here. First, you list three possible rationales for punishing criminals, yet you agree that only one of those is fulfilled by Polanski's self-imposed exile (He's the one that fled the U.S. - if he wanted so desperately to stay and work here and visit his dead wife and child's graves, he could have). You seem unconcerned about Polanski's decision flake on his agreement to submit to punishment. Polanski essentially decided he didn't like his looming punishment and thought he would substitute another, more palatable one (one that 99% of the world, if not more, would not consider a punishment at all). You don't have a problem with that? I find that a bit disturbing.

On deporting criminals, I'm pretty sure we don't deport child rapists to their home countries. At least, not before they are punished by the U.S. criminal justice system.

About the victim - yes, she says she has moved on and forgiven Polanski. That's great. It took her a long time to do that, however. What would you say if two months after the rape she told everyone she had forgiven him and wanted it to be dropped? Would you be clamoring to let him go? Would you be asking everyone else to move on as well?

[Art Vandelay]

DDD what type of law do you specialize in? You seemed equally well versed in discussing most aspects of law regardless of the topic (at least from a non-attorney's perspective)?

[TripletDaddy]

so I can understand you, when is a prosecution 'worth it'? Are you suggesting that a decision on mercy applied through the CJS should best be made by a prosectuor as opposed to a judge? Would you advocate allowing all foregin alien offenders to simply leave as long as they promise not to return?

I don't know if there is a hard and fast rule.

In this case, here is what we know:

1. He raped this girl.
2. He fled the country
3. He has not returned to the country in almost 40 years
4. In that time period, he has been a productive member of society and has not been accused of repeat behavior...or really any other socially deviant/criminal behavior
5. He has made significant professional contributions, as recognized by his fellow industry practitioners
6. He has made zero attempts to physically return to the United States, although his lawyers have sought to have the case dismissed. He seems content with staying away, never to return.
7. He does have a great investment in returning to the US, both professionally and personally, so he definitely is offering some consideration in return for his absence from our country
8. The victim in question maintains that the incident took place, does not rationalize it, but has also said unequivocally that she forgives the man and wishes for everyone to move on. She has expressly asked that charges against him be dropped.

So in this case, no, I don't see much point in pursuing. Polanski agrees to never return to the US. In return, case is dismissed.

I am certainly not advocating that all foreign alien offenders simply leave. However, offenders that committed their crime 40 years ago and whose victims are expressly lobbying for forgiveness on behalf of the criminal....yes, I think there are some parallels there.

However, to be clear, I am not saying that this applies in every instance. The law is not a seamless web. There is no rule that applies to every instance.

[TripletDaddy]

lol - you folks cant move on. If you've moved on, why are you posting in this thread?

Lots of problems with what you wrote here. First, you list three possible rationales for punishing criminals, yet you agree that only one of those is fulfilled by Polanski's self-imposed exile (He's the one that fled the U.S. - if he wanted so desperately to stay and work here and visit his dead wife and child's graves, he could have). You seem unconcerned about Polanski's decision flake on his agreement to submit to punishment. Polanski essentially decided he didn't like his looming punishment and thought he would substitute another, more palatable one (one that 99% of the world, if not more, would not consider a punishment at all). You don't have a problem with that? I find that a bit disturbing.

On deporting criminals, I'm pretty sure we don't deport child rapists to their home countries. At least, not before they are punished by the U.S. criminal justice system.

About the victim - yes, she says she has moved on and forgiven Polanski. That's great. It took her a long time to do that, however. What would you say if two months after the rape she told everyone she had forgiven him and wanted it to be dropped? Would you be clamoring to let him go? Would you be asking everyone else to move on as well?

You are not well versed in this case. As a bit of a Tate-LaBianca buff, I followed this Polanski issue for a long time. Your characterization of Samantha Geimer is inaccurate.

I have given the rule. Apply them to your own hypotheticals. In the Polanski case, we are talking about the passage of time....significant amounts of time. Your 2 month hypothetical is inapplicable. What about 5 minutes after the rape? What about 3 hours after the rape? How does your opinion change? go back and study. then return and report.

[falafel]

I don't know if there is a hard and fast rule.

In this case, here is what we know:

1. He raped this girl.
2. He fled the country
3. He has not returned to the country in almost 40 years
4. In that time period, he has been a productive member of society and has not been accused of repeat behavior...or really any other socially deviant/criminal behavior
5. He has made significant professional contributions, as recognized by his fellow industry practitioners
6. He has made zero attempts to physically return to the United States, although his lawyers have sought to have the case dismissed. He seems content with staying away, never to return.
7. He does have a great investment in returning to the US, both professionally and personally, so he definitely is offering some consideration in return for his absence from our country
8. The victim in question maintains that the incident took place, does not rationalize it, but has also said unequivocally that she forgives the man and wishes for everyone to move on. She has expressly asked that charges against him be dropped.

So in this case, no, I don't see much point in pursuing. Polanski agrees to never return to the US. In return, case is dismissed.

1a. He was charged with raping a child, but had the charges reduced to unlawful (?) sex with a minor in exchange for his guilty plea, and by so doing agreed to be sentenced according to the law.

People keep leaving that one out.

[TripletDaddy]

DDD what type of law do you specialize in? You seemed equally well versed in discussing most aspects of law regardless of the topic (at least from a non-attorney's perspective)?

actually I am just comfortable hearing myself talk....which is a common trait amongst CUF posters.

[TripletDaddy]

1a. He was charged with raping a child, but had the charges reduced to unlawful (?) sex with a minor in exchange for his guilty plea, and by so doing agreed to be sentenced according to the law.

People keep leaving that one out.

is this in issue? i didn't think we were discussing whether he agreed to be sentenced. again, back to your study group, 1L.

[falafel]

You are not well versed in this case. As a bit of a Tate-LaBianca buff, I followed this Polanski issue for a long time. Your characterization of Samantha Geimer is inaccurate.

I have given the rule. Apply them to your own hypotheticals. In the Polanski case, we are talking about the passage of time....significant amounts of time. Your 2 month hypothetical is inapplicable. What about 5 minutes after the rape? What about 3 hours after the rape? How does your opinion change? go back and study. then return and report.

I don't understand any of these statements you make.

Go and study what?

My opinion, obviously, does not change with the passage of time. That was my whole point.

[falafel]

is this in issue? i didn't think we were discussing whether he agreed to be sentenced. again, back to your study group, 1L.

Spoken like a true 3L.

Your post was listing "things we know." We certainly know that he plead guilty and agreed to be sentenced, but then fled under the additional liberty his agreement afforded him. For some reason, you didn't think that was significant.

[TripletDaddy]

I think you are close to correct, but we disagree on the importance of the legal principle involved. He committed a crime against the state, not the victim. The case is People v. Polanski, as you know. When he decided he might be looking at some prison time, he could have withdrawn his guilty plea and presented his case to a jury, and he could have appealed a conviction. Instead, while free on bail, he fled the country. I think it's a very bad thing to just let that go. If he comes back and faces justice, and the sentence is he has to speak to 50 high school student crowds about obeying the law, that's fine with me. We have to take the rule of law seriously, and this case is so high-profile that I think it's especially important that we do that.

Besides, this whole thing gives guys like me something to yammer on about.

Actually, I agree with this. we seem to be of the same accord. I think your proposed sentence is actually a very good one. There is some practical benefit to having him use his celebrity to reach people. In fact, I think your idea is fantastic. Seriously.

Having him come back to LA so he can sit in the Twin Towers in Ad-Seg for a year is a silly idea. Serves no purpose.

[TripletDaddy]

Spoken like a true 3L.

Your post was listing "things we know." We certainly know that he plead guilty and agreed to be sentenced, but then fled under the additional liberty his agreement afforded him. For some reason, you didn't think that was significant.

it isn't significant to my answer to creekster's question.

You would benefit from reading about this case....beyond gleaning over links to the smokinggun.com looking at court docs for any salacious references to sex. You could try renting the Polanski doc, "Wanted and Desired," for more insight into Geimer and Polanski. Maybe even read a book or two on it. His autobiography is a good one.

[LA Ute]

I think your idea is fantastic. Seriously.

LA Ute and DDD agree. Speaks libraries.

[UtahDan]

LA Ute and DDD agree. Speaks libraries.

I agree with you too LA. There. That ought to kill any synergy the two of you had going on.

[TripletDaddy]

I agree with you too LA. There. That ought to kill any synergy the two of you had going on.

we should create one mega-poster and name him LAUtahDDDan. LAUtahDDDan will encompass a broad spectrum of political and religious opinions, have refined cultural and sporting tastes, a sharp acumen for academics and social issues, and will be really funny! he will also be hampered by old age.