<p>I find it really surprising that many people (not just Whoppi) are excusing Polanski’s behavior. He pled guilty to raping a child. She was 13. He gave her drugs and alcohol and she still told him to stop. He didn’t. He should serve jail time–even it’s only what the judge had originally agreed to (2 months? and probation). Is it common for judges to go against a plea bargain that a prosecutor and defense lawyer have worked out?</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Can’t speak for California but in most cases, if a judge won’t go along with the deal, the defendant gets his plea back and is restored to his pre-plea position, i.e. make a new deal or go to trial.</p>
<p>Of course, Polanski can’t really take the latter option as later in life, he made admissions that could suffice to convict him.</p>
<p>And there is also the matter of unlawful flight to avoid prosecution.</p>
<p>I’m not really understanding why this is newsworthy- well, maybe newsworthy given his apparent notoriety, but certainly not deserving a multiple-page thread on this board.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do you deem “deserving” of a thread on CC? The cafes are full of news events of the day and people discussing them. NO different than the many threads on CC of this type, let alone the political threads discussing news stories. If it is in the news, people have thoughts on the matter. If it doesn’t interest you, why did you open the thread and even post on it no less? Obviously, you were interested enough to read it.</p>
<p>Hard to wrap my mind around how a mom let her 13 year old go there by herself. When my D was 13, she auditioned professionally in NYC (not photo shoots as she doesn’t do print), as well as did head shot photo sessions and I just can’t imagine her attending without a parent. In fact, I think a parent was required to be there. </p>
<p>Also, hard to imagine he did not know this girl was underage as his previous interaction with her was in a situation where her mom was the chaperone. Even if he didn’t know her exact age, he had to know she was not yet 18. When you are a man and have sex with a young person, it is your obligation to know ahead of time if that person is underage or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This was a documentary that interviewed lawyers who were familiar with and worked on the cases. Those facts can be uncovered without a documentary. The legal system messed up. I’m not stupid. I can evaluate the information. One evaluates the evidence being presented. People on both sides of the case say that mistakes were made. No one is making a case that everything was handled perfectly. The legal system bears some responsibility for him getting away with it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did not make excuses for him. You should go back and reread my post because I said he should have been punished. That said, I do think he went through some terrible things. He did a terrible thing. Terrible things were done to him. That’s how it is in a world wracked by evil. Evil tends to beget more evil. It doesn’t mean he’s excused. And I don’t think there is anything “sick” about my reasoning. It’s the way the world actually is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I would not excuse you. And I do not excuse him. If you had read my post closely, you would have read “He should have been punished.” I never said that his past excused this action. I did say I felt some compassion for what he had been through and I do. I can’t help it. The thought of living with the fact that a loved young wife about to give birth was brutally killed the way Sharon Tate was - it’s hard for me not to feel compassion. Having your mother murdered – hard for me not to feel compassion. But I also feel compassion for the young girl he raped and, as I already said, I think he should have been punished. Now I think the legal system has to figure out how to best serve justice in light of their own errors, extradition laws, and the actual merits of the case, etc. I’m not a lawyer and I would imagine there are a lot of complexities in this case beyond what seems obvious to laypeople.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While it would obviously still be horrific, yes, it’s worse when a 13 year old is involved. The law recognizes that–and it should. And when the male involved is in his 40s, it’s called pedophilia.</p>
<p>Read her testimony if you have the stomach for it. There are no “complexities.”. He plied a 13 yo with alcohol and quaaludes and raped her. The end.</p>
<p>
No, it isn’t. And in this case, there was the additional problem that the DA (who wasn’t working the case) apparently went to the judge to persuade him to reject the deal. That’s an improper ex parte communication. None of this excuses Polanski in any way, but it does explain whey he fled, and why the case is difficult.</p>
<p>This sums up what many are thinking about Roman Polanski:</p>
<p>[Reminder:</a> Roman Polanski raped a child - Broadsheet - Salon.com](<a href=“http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/]Reminder:”>http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/)</p>
<p>It is hard to understand how he could have gotten away with doing this to a young girl.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was not referring to what actually happened re the crime when I used the term “complexities.” I was referring to the complexities of the legal system. I don’t understand how anyone thinks this is going to be some kind of open and shut case where they just retry him as if decades haven’t passed. He is going to have a top lawyer who will find every loophole, every legal precedent, etc. And the prosecutors are going to really have their work cut out for them, in my opinion. If only it were so easy to get guilty people convicted, a lot fewer guilty people would not be on the streets.</p>
<p>For those who have a strong stomach, the Smoking Gun is featuring documents from this case on the front page. </p>
<p>I see no reason why he should get a new trial - the transcript from his pleading guilty shows the judge going in great detail into the implications of him pleading guilty - and Polanski agreeing to all of the cautionary questions. He plead guilty and then left the country before sentencing was completed. Re sentence him and let him serve his time.</p>
<p>Interesting, Scalum. Does anyone know if you can just carry on with a sentencing despite the amount of time that has gone by? Does it matter that that the judge would be a different one? Would he/she need to hear details of the case in order to make a sentence? What is the procedure here?</p>
<p>Here is an article from the New York Times written earlier this year that shows that it might be more complicated than just returning him and sentencing him. I guess I’m cynical because famous people just don’t seem to have to face consequences like other folks. </p>
<p>[NY</a> Times: Polanski’s Lawyers Seek Change of Venue From Hollywood | Roman Polanski Wanted and Desired](<a href=“romanpolanskiwantedanddesired.com”>romanpolanskiwantedanddesired.com)</p>
<p>Another issue is that the media released the name of the victim. I read an article the other day in which the victim said she did not want to put her family (husband and two children) through any more trauma. She said the media had ruined her life by publishing her name.</p>
<p>When does the media EVER release the name of the victim?</p>
<p>Interesting story in today’s Los Angeles Times: It seems that Mr. Polanski’s ATTORNEYS set this whole thing in motion. They submitted documents, earlier this year, that since so many years had gone by…ad nausem…Why don’t we just forget it? That got the dander of the DAs office up. (So, let’s add a little legal malpractice suit into the mix.)</p>
<p>The victim’s name is common knowledge. I can’t imagine that her family doesn’t know what happened. I believe that her name came out many years ago.</p>
<p>Mr. Polanski’s life has been HUGELY traumatic. Yes, he escaped the Krakow ghetto,his family murdered by the Nazis, his wife and baby were murdered. I believe I have heard a number of people say, regarding the rape that: He has had a traumatic life (so did many people of that generation). The rape was a long time ago. (So were the traumas of his childhood and marriage.) So, let’s forget what the great artist did to a young girl. (Incidentally, a girlfriend possibly wife was 18 when they got together in France). Tell you what: Let’s stop making excuses. What happened to Mr. Polanski happened many years ago. I imagine that if he met the men and women on the street who murdered his family he wouldn’t say, “OH, let’s forget it. It’s been so many years.”</p>
<p>I’d like to ask the people who have sheltered him for 30 years: “He drugged a girl young enough to be his grand-daughter so that he could have sex with her. Then he fled the country to escape prosecution after he had pled guilty. Just exactly what part of this behavior is OK with you?”</p>
<p>As Happykid said yesterday after we heard this on the radio, “What a creeper.”</p>
<p>Looks like they were trying to do a Marc Rich. Maybe they should have approached Eric Holder.</p>
<p>
And reading the papers, it wasn’t just sex with a young girl. There was force and sodomy involved. There are no circumstances under which that’s acceptable.</p>