| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
MguyXXV 
"X marks the spot"
|
 Posted - 05/03/2010 : 08:39:59
|
I'm sure we've covered this in another thread, but I have little success in searching for past threads. Somebody help a brother out.
I have read that non-U.S. sentiments regarding the Polanski extradition issue tend to be more sympathetic toward Polanski. Eh, whatever: people can feel how they like; I think he's a rich child rapist who's made a lot of good films. I'm not taking issue with his films.
But this fucking idiot needs to shut up. With the same breath he accuses the Los Angeles District Attorney of wanting to serve him up to the global media, all while he employs the media to plead his privileged case to the world public. Hypocrite.
I'd detest him slightly less if he would just say "Look, I know what I did was wrong. I used my power and prestige to engineer a situation where I drugged and raped an underage girl. I was wrong. But I really don't want to risk a prison sentence if I'm extradited. I've managed to evade California law this long, so maybe if I can evade it some more, the fuss will die down and people might forget again. It won't change what I did, but at least I won't have to go to prison."
Nah: I'd still think he was a fucking jerk -- but an honest one at least. |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 05/03/2010 14:59:01 |
|
|
Cheese_Ed 
"The Provolone Ranger"
|
Posted - 05/03/2010 : 12:45:40
|
Did you ever watch this movie Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired?
Just curious. |
 |
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 05/03/2010 : 15:29:30
|
I saw part of it. Did he admit to being a rapist?
I remember the recent book excerpt where he described it as "making love." With a 13 year old. Who didn't want to do it. To whom he gave a Quaalude. And entered via the "No Entry" path.
Desired: I must be missing something ...  |
|
|
|
Cheese_Ed
"The Provolone Ranger"
|
Posted - 05/03/2010 : 20:34:53
|
You should watch it. I think I streamed it for free on Netflix, it may be up there still if you have an account.
As a non-lawyer and someone who was too young to know anything about the case at the time, I thought the legal wranglings and problems with the judge were pretty eye opening.
As far as I can remember, I think it boiled down to:
He did it
It was a heinous crime
The girl wouldn't testify
He agreed to a plea bargain for a lesser charge than rape
He was put in a facility for a psychiatric evaluation and they chose to let him out early
Then because of media and public pressure the (world's worst?) judge decided to renege on the bargain
Roman flees
I don't know, it was a far cry from the general impression that he just raped a girl, hopped on a plane and has been hiding from it ever since. I'd be interested in hearing what a lawyer makes of the legal issues surrounding the plea, the sentencing, the judge, etc. |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 05/03/2010 : 20:55:53
|
To be fair Cheesy-E, before I comment more specifically, I'm going to watch the entire thing tonight, because I remember seeing only about 25% of it.
However, I will note that the world of judges and "judgery" is complex. There's a lot (both public and private) that goes into their thinking and their actions. I've seen bad judges, I've seen maniacal judges, and I've seen veritably angelic judges, but my initial impression of Polanski's judge is that he wasn't as bad as the film may paint him out to be.
It was a different time (but rape was still rape), laws were a little different (except that rape was still rape), and the laws were enforced in a different manner (a technicality of which Polanski would still get the benfit when he gets his slimy ass here).
By the same token, I believe there was some substantial recantation by the Assistant District Attorney regarding the statements he made in the film. I'll look that up too (and I was looking for an excuse to watch the entire film anyway).  |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 05/04/2010 03:46:22 |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 05/03/2010 : 22:46:25
|
| Fuck him. He'll relate! |
Edited by - randall on 05/03/2010 22:52:12 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 05/04/2010 : 14:59:13
|
Not that this excuses anything, but didn't the girl herself say that she wanted it all dropped and forgotten so she can move forward with her life?
(And yes, no matter what she says, rape is still rape. But if she isn't willing to press charges or testify, then there is no case... At least that's what I've learned from all those Law & Order shows.)
|
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 05/04/2010 : 20:13:46
|
PRESSING CHARGES
That's just T.V., Choc: "pressing charges" is a quaint phrase that means almost nothing in the context of criminal prosecution. But it sure sounds good, and that�s the theme of my little essay here: it all sounds good.
The Criminal Prosecution Process: Once the state/law enforcement has information and evidence of a crime, the state has an obligation to prosecute the accused offender. The victim�s willingness to testify and desire to see that the accused get convicted is irrelevant: crimes are offenses against public safety. Case in point (which is actually "case on point," but it sounds better the other way, and popular usage has transformed the phrase, so let's keep moving): Larry hacks off all of Father Pedophile's limbs in a fit of anger, because Father P had molested Larry repeatedly when Larry was a child. Father P feels that he had it coming, so he tells the cops that he doesn�t want to �press charges.� You guessed it: Larry�s going to prison, because the right of the public to be safe from limb-trimming vigilantes is greater than Father P�s private preferences. Public safety cannot be relegated to the whim of the individual victim. Back to Polanski: Wanted and Desired: I watched the film in its entirety: fascinating. A huge piece of Polanski propaganda only loosely masquerading as a documentary, but fascinating.
Cheesy-E, Judge Rittenband was no worse nor different than any of a thousand other judges in a metropolitan city. The film labors to accuse the judge of wrong doing when the criminal is ... Polanski! Never forget this: Polanski drugged and had anal sex with a child against her will. That�s disgusting, and that�s rape. It is an argumentative trick (popular among defense lawyers -- when you don't have the option of simply denying the fact) to admit wrong doing at the outset and then to contextualize and qualify the admission out of existence with dramatic argument and story-telling. Then, it�s usually the prosecution�s job to cut through the bullshit and get back to the heart of the matter: he did it, and he admitted it. That doesn�t make him a hero.
[NOTE: The remainder of this rant is largely my personal opinion, interspersed with some legal observations. It is not directed at any person in particular, nor do I assume that any person in this thread or on this site has made any of the statements against which I rail. More particularly, when I re-read this, I want to make clear that I am not accusing my beloved Cheese Ed -- master of the Avatar Contest, Supreme Sultan of cheese-related wit, and General Good Joe -- of anything, nor am I attacking him. Ed is a friend of mine and a damned good fwiffer. I used his name in the last paragraph merely because I started out by responding to a couple of questions he posed. Accordingly, no one should come away from this exercise with any thoughts like "Cheese Ed slices cheese with underaged girls," or "Cheese Ed plied an underaged girl with cheese," or "Cheese Ed has cheese for lunch ... daily!" -- though one of those statements is probably true. We may now resume our regular programming.]
Polanski Drugged and Had Anal Sex with A Child Against Her Will. That�s Rape. Any suggestion (in the film) that the girl might have been complicit is offensive in the extreme: she was a child, just barely over 12, and Polanski drugged her. Then he had anal sex with her (which -- side note -- in certain cultures, is a way to have sex with the purpose of not tearing the hymen; in other words, a way to deny that sex occurred -� this is evidence of advance planning and consciousness of guilt, even if one ignores the handy quaalude Polanski gave her, but that's just my observation).
Let�s also cut any "she was asking for it" or "her mother pimped her" argument short: it is a crime to have sex with an underage person. Period. It is a crime to ply a person with drugs to overcome their will for the purpose of having sex. Period. It is also a punishable enhancement when these crimes involve a person under 14. Period. The question of whether these �should� be crimes is not a relevant inquiry at this point: they are crimes, and a 32 year-old Polanski committed them. Knowingly. Wilfully. Polanski drugged and had anal sex with a child against her will. That�s rape.
It�s Not His Fault! The fact that Polanski had previously suffered some truly horrendous personal tragedies does not excuse the fact that he schemed to isolate, drug and force himself on a child. That argument is irrelevant for purposes of conviction. It may factor into a sentencing report, and it might even justify a slightly shorter jail term, but it doesn�t change the fact that ...
Polanski drugged and had anal sex with a child against her will. That�s rape.
Judge Rittenband Was Evil. No he wasn�t. A judge has a great deal of discretion in deciding a case; that's just a fact of judicial power. In Polanski's case, the judge was already giving him preferential treatment: a non-famous, non-wealthy defendant would not have gotten the relatively soft treatment Polanski got. But this film seems to operate from the premise that Polanski's attorney made "a deal" and that "a deal is a deal," no matter whether that deal is a veritable slap on the wrist. Wrong.Fact: in the context of plea bargaining, "a deal" is not just "a deal": the judge always retains the power to deviate from a negotiated plea based on his or her ultimate view of what should be done. That feature of the judiciary is necessary to prevent criminal justice from becoming merely a matter of contract (or the whim of individual victims). Like any social system, the system of western justice has many flaws in practice, but it gets high marks for trying.
Polanski drugged and had anal sex with a child against her will. That�s rape. So there�s no great drama or perversion of justice when a judge indicates that he is going to increase the indicated sentence in a rape case or any other case. Be advised that when a judge deviates from a plea bargain, the defendant has a constitutional right to withdraw his plea! That�s right: if Polanski didn�t like what the judge was going to do, he always � always � had the right to change his �guilty� plea to �not guilty� and take his chances with a trial to a jury, just like everybody else. Polanski was out on bail, so if he didn�t like the sentence, he could have remained out on bail pending the outcome of a trial.
The more I write this, the more outrageous this becomes for me: what in the fuck makes Polanski so special that he should be allowed to skirt the criminal justice system? He has the exact same rights as everyone else, and he faces the same risks. Compounding his initial crime (Polanski drugged and had anal sex with a child against her will -- that�s rape) with another crime (fleeing prosecution) is hardly a good strategy for making the case that he shouldn�t be punished.
Polanski still has the right to change his plea to �not guilty� and go to trial (if the eventual sentence given for the plea bargain substantially deviates from the original agreement). It�s a Santa Monica jury pool, even: they�d probably let him off easy because he�s so famous! However, Judge Rittenband (much to his credit) fashioned the deal so that the length of the sentence remained open, so (*snicker*) mere length of sentence might not be a sufficient ground for permitting withdrawal of the plea. I laugh because Polanski drugged and had anal sex with a child against her will -- that�s rape -- so if he's stuck with the deal he made, so what. (And now, suddenly, "a deal is a deal" doesn't sound so good?)
And all of that crap about the judge being personally offended and blah, blah, blah ... that�s subterfuge. Judges make personal commentary on cases all the time; you read about it frequently, when a judge pronounces a judgment and then says something like �this is a heinous crime and you are a heinous, despicable person.� Clearly, the judge is expressing a personal sentiment, just like anybody else. If Judge Rittenband had indicated that he was going to give Polanski the death penalty, that would have been illegal (because it�s not an available punishment for rape). But so long as the sentence he was going to give was permitted by law, there would have been nothing illegal about it. Of particular note: this was not a trial, so Judge Rittenband was free to consider whatever he wanted when approaching the issue of sentencing. It's not like he was receiving secret evidence and convicting someone on the basis of secret evidence: sentencing after a conviction (or guilty plea) is an entirely different procedure!
Polanski drugged and had anal sex with a child against her will. That�s rape. I don�t care that he made some good films: nobody�s absolving all of those child molesting priests just because they also gave some inspiring sermons. When people break the law � even famous people, and admired people � there�s a reckoning that has to happen. He didn�t �smoke marijuana in public� (an offense for which I would have been very sympathetic, because I believe the punishment for that crime needs a lot of rethinking): Polanski drugged and had anal sex with a child against her will. That�s rape. That deserves punishment. And fleeing from prosecution deserves punishment too. In fact, Polanski has made it worse for himself: because he is so famous a scofflaw, it�s almost necessary to make an example of him.
Unfortunately, however, it�s going to be a huge let down when he eventually does get back to California and he doesn�t get substantially punished. That�s the likelihood of what�s going to happen.
Polanski drugged and had anal sex with a child against her will. That�s really fucked up. She sued him, she got $500,000, and now she�s gotten over it (she says). So? How does that serve the ends of public safety? It doesn�t. It�s not that we�re so afraid that Polanski will do it again: part of the purpose of criminal prosecution is to establish standards of behavior, because we don�t want others doing it too.
Polanski has not paid for his crime against the public. That�s the issue. And that's not right. |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 05/05/2010 01:05:57 |
|
|
|
Cheese_Ed
"The Provolone Ranger"
|
Posted - 05/04/2010 : 21:45:18
|
It almost sounds like you are trying to say Polanski drugged and had anal sex with a child against her will... which sounds like rape.
Actually I didn't get the impression that anyone had forgotten that fact or that the film tried to minimize it... I guess Roman handles that personally. I agree that his film making talent and history of personal tragedy is all distraction, but of course it is always interesting to try and understand how it influences prosecution of celebrity defendants in potentially positive and negative ways.
Glad to hear you opine so mellifluously on the case. So if the film's suggestion that he got a little jobbed by the court is all horse hockey, what about the DA who seemed to be in agreement? Find out anything about his recantation? |
|
|
|
Cheese_Ed
"The Provolone Ranger"
|
Posted - 05/04/2010 : 22:01:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
[NOTE: The remainder of this rant is largely my personal opinion, interspersed with some legal observations. It is not directed at any person in particular, nor do I assume that any person in this thread or on this site has made any of the statements against which I rail. More particularly, when I re-read this, I want to make clear that I am not accusing my beloved Cheese Ed -- master of the Avatar Contest, Supreme Sultan of cheese-related wit, and General Good Joe -- of anything, nor am I attacking him. Ed is a friend of mine and a damned good fwiffer. I merely used his name in the last paragraph because I started out by responding to a couple of questions he posed. Accordingly, no one should come away from this exercise with any thoughts like "Cheese Ed slices cheese with underaged girls," or "Cheese Ed plied an underaged girl with cheese," or "Cheese Ed has cheese for lunch ... daily!" -- though one of those statements is probably true. We may now resume our regular programming.]
My k�se worker has suggested that I should take this opportunity to disclose that I am a registered wax offender and that I should never be left alone with any of your dairy products, no matter how well aged. |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 05/04/2010 : 23:46:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
Fuck him. He'll relate!
I just now got that.  quote:
Originally posted by Cheese_Ed
My k�se worker has suggested that I should take this opportunity to disclose that I am a registered wax offender and that I should never be left alone with any of your dairy products, no matter how well aged.
Never disappoints!  |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 05/05/2010 01:20:06 |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 05/05/2010 : 01:27:19
|
Los Angeles Times, September 30, 2009Retired prosecutor says he lied about Polanski case
A retired Los Angeles County prosecutor who claimed in a 2008 documentary that he advised a judge to sentence Roman Polanski to prison for having sex with a minor now says that he lied on film about his role in the case.
The on-camera statements by David Wells in �Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired� were seized upon by Polanski�s defense attorneys, who say in court documents that Superior Court Judge Laurence J. Rittenband and Wells engaged in misconduct by improperly discussing the 1977 case behind closed doors.
Wells, who at the time of the alleged misconduct was not the assigned prosecutor on the case, claimed in the film that he spoke to Rittenband before sentencing and told the judge that Polanski deserved prison time.
He claimed that he suggested a way that the judge could sentence the director to prison by sending him to Chino State Prison for a 90-day �diagnostic testing,� despite a probation officer�s recommendation that Polanski serve no time behind bars.
�That was not true,� Wells told The Times today during a brief interview. �I like to speak of it as an inept statement, but the reality is that it was a lie.�
Wells, 71, said that he made up the story, believing that the documentary would never been shown in the United States. The film was broadcast on HBO.
In January, Wells told The Times that he regretted making the statements but never said they were untrue. Rittenband died in 1993. Wells said today that he notified the district attorney�s office several months ago that he had lied during the film and apologized for his actions.
He said he decided to make the announcement public after the weekend arrest of Polanski, who fled Los Angeles on the eve of sentencing after pleading guilty to sexual intercourse with a minor.
�Why am I owning up to it now? If Polanski does come back, that�s going to be an issue as to whether he can withdraw the plea,� Wells said.
Wells' comments were first reported by The Daily Beast.
Wells statements in the HBO documentary make up a portion but far from all of the misconduct allegations Polanski's attorneys leveled at Rittenband for his handling of the original case. His attorneys cited interviews in the documentary in their unsuccessful effort to dismiss the case.
Frankly, even if he did have conversations with the judge, I don't think it amounts to actual or actionable misconduct. A judge has a lot of leeway when considering sentencing options, so long as its not improper (like taking money to do a particular thing). Listening to somebody's opinion is not disallowed.
(Yeah, I constantly edit these posts: so what!  ) |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 05/05/2010 04:34:38 |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 05/05/2010 : 09:41:05
|
Here's another thing: Judge Rittenband appeared set on sentencing Polanski to only 90 days, and he appears to have also wanted to have Polanski deported. The so-called misconduct allegation stems from the deportation issue, which the lawyers say Rittenband had no right to make orders about. They are correct about that: whether a person gets deported is not a State court criminal law issue. It would have been an illegal sentence in that regard only. But the rest of the sentence -- 90 days of prison time -- would have stood.
Polanski could have appealed any such deportation-related order as clearly illegal and it would not have affected his incarceration time, so let's get back to the interesting part. Under the deal, Polanski was going to serve only 90 days (and he had already "served" 42 in a prison diagnostic program). Ninety days is a joke of a sentence for what he did, but no one is alleging that Rittenband was going to sentence Polanski to more time than that. Another irony is that, once Polanski reached prison, the warden could have (and probably would have) cut Polanski's stay short anyway: the court has no control over how the Department of Corrections administers the details of a sentence.
So this dick jumps bail over 48 days behind bars. If I had a client who jumped bail over 48 days, I'd go beat his stupid ass myself and drag him back.
[I'm not bullshitting: I had a client once who told me he was going to flee when he was facing a 3-year prison sentence. He was actually engineering a temporary release on bail pending sentencing, using some phony information and his mother's business assets as collateral. I blocked the bail and chewed his ass out good for being a fucking idiot (committing the crime, and getting caught) and a selfish fuckhead (because his mother's assets would eventually have been seized). He was pissed at me for a long time, but he served two years and got out, at which time I confronted him and reminded him that he could now go on with his life instead of being an idiot on the run. He didn't thank me, but he didn't argue with me about it either.]  |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 05/05/2010 09:51:33 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Polanski: Talented Idiot or Really Talented Idiot?
