Why Did Roman Polanski Run Away?

It is so said that only Francis, who is not even an American, seems to get that what we do with Polanski is about us...who we are....not about him.

What do we value? Is it justice? retribution? feeding our sadistic streak? collective health?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Why do we owe a get out of a crime free card because the man ran away before the judge could approve or disapprove a plea deal?

He void his agreement/plea deal when he ran away and therefore in facing the same charges that he was facing in the 70s.

There seem nothing but a very straight forward catching of a man charge with raping a young girl and he need to face the justice system that he ran away from in the 70s.

There is zero moral problem with dealing with him in the same manner as any other man charge with raping a child.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

he should not, but he should get what he would have gotten then, unless you want to hang him for running, in which case you should need to prove a seperate case in court.

1 Reply

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

The power of the US media and the local vox populi (as seen on this forum) will prevent a fair trial taking place.

Mind that I'm talking for the indicted and the victim.

In any event, I think Polanski will be extradited and that there will be a trial..

But a trial is not necessary. He has pleaded guilty, so the only thing left is the sentencing. What do you think would be a fair sentence? What would a French court today hand down for a guilty plea on a similar crime? (I not trying to jump you here; I really want to know.)

1 Reply

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

Bill wrote:
but have yet to offer a single coherent reason the rich man should be allowed to get away with the that which the poor man could not.

Your arguments are designed to provide a condemnation by what you name the layman.

Not true. I'm simply pointing out that your irrational fears of excessive punishment could only be instilled in the layman. A better understanding of the laws of the land would preclude it. Note Bill RM shares this belief, only he supports the idea of really banking the cowardly rapist. As would I, but barring unprecedented, unconstitutional actions, this simply isn't going to happen.

Francis wrote:

What you are just doing is a plain straw man as illustrated in your quoted sentence above.

Where rich and poor came into play? Where did I say that I wanted him free and not punished?

A bit too demagogic for my taste..

Really Francis, this isn't complicated and you can't even use ignorance to excuse it. Were Polanski not rich, he would have served his sentence 3 decades ago... and every contributor on this thread knows this. Those with an unencumbered sense of fair play object to this obviously unfair deviation in the administration of justice. However unintentionally; your position favors setting an example that if you buy your way out of crime long enough it will be forgiven. This is repugnant to any purported justice system.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

he should not, but he should get what he would have gotten then, unless you want to hang him for running, in which case you should need to prove a seperate case in court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry he ran before before before before a thousand time over before the plea deal was approve by the judge assuming that the judge would had agree to the plea deal. He did this of his own free will and therefore voiding any rights he might had enjoy concerning the old plea deal.

There was therefore no sentencing and no plea deal and we are back to him facing a whole set of charges of raping a child that he should now face a trial for.

Or he could try getting another new plea deal but the old plea deal is dead because of his own actions, no one else actions.

There is not one bit of a moral problem with now trialing him for his crimes.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Please do. It's just a pity you and Beth are temporarily buying into the nonsense, and thereby bolstering Shorteyes' demented outlook.

1 Reply

@engineer,

He has pleaded guilty, so the only thing left is the sentencing
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry it is not that simple if you enter a plea deal and it get rejected by the judge or it does not go through for any other reason, as in you running away, you have a right to withdraw the guilty plea and go to court.

So there is no existing plea deal or existing guilty plea for that matter.

We are all back to the 70s before the plea deal.

0 Replies

Bill wrote:

your position favors setting an example that if you buy your way out of crime long enough it will be forgiven.

This is obviously untrue (others would call it BS) as you can easily see if you read my previous post with an attention that, for reasons untold, you seem to be lacking..

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Please do. It's just a pity you and Beth are temporarily buying into the nonsense, and thereby bolstering Shorteyes' demented outlook.

or maybe I am right, that it is people like you who are the morally corrupt ones, not me and my kind.

You can not even manage civility and respect the dignity of you fellow man. My what a great man you are.....not.

0 Replies

@Francis,

And as the 70s plea deal was not sign by the judge there is no plea deal Polanski can fall back on.

He used damn poor judgment in running when he did and as a result there is a good chance that the raping SOB will never be a free man again.

That fact is not a moral problem as he was the one who ran when he did and he was the one who raped a child.

If he had not run he more then likely would had only serve a few months if that behind bars.

1 Reply

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

Bill wrote:
your position favors setting an example that if you buy your way out of crime long enough it will be forgiven.

This is obviously untrue (others would call it BS) as you can easily see if you read my previous post with an attention that, for reasons untold, you seem to be lacking..

Spell it out Francis. How exactly do you reconcile objecting to the lawful extradition of a convicted felon, while simultaneously denying that you're calling for no punishment?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Bill can you offer any support for that assertion?

1 Reply

Engineer wrote:

What do you think would be a fair sentence? What would a French court today hand down for a guilty plea on a similar crime? (I not trying to jump you here; I really want to know.)

I replied to this question already.

Just check out my post about the penalties incurred for "unlawful sexual intercourse".

Just apply those penalties.

We don't have the plea deal around here. Our justice system is quite different from yours.

If you are found guilty, you'll be sentenced to the penalties required by law.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Spell it out Francis. How exactly do you reconcile objecting to the lawful extradition of a convicted felon, while simultaneously denying that you're calling for no punishment?

Polanski is sitting in jail, will sit in jail for an extended period of time in order for the extradition process to work. If at the end of that process he is released, not turned over to America, he will have been further punished from what he was years ago.

The Europeans refuse to extradite those who face the death penalty in America, on the grounds that this is unreasonable punishment and they dont want to be a part of it. The same justificacion should be used here, American is incapable of dealing with this case justly, there-for they can't have Polanski.

0 Replies

What does "Shorteyes" mean ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

good question. Obviously some sort of demeaning personal label since Bill routinely can't come up with good arguments and thus resort to throwing **** fits.

1 Reply

OBill wrote:

How exactly do you reconcile objecting to the lawful extradition of a convicted felon, while simultaneously denying that you're calling for no punishment?

I said that the case is irremediably messed up.

The American authorities asked the Swiss to arrest Polanski since 2005.

What made the Swiss to arrest him now, when he was going there to be awarded with a prize?

Thus, not all is black and white and this trap he felt in could have been done years ago.

This leads me to think that ulterior motives were at the origin of this trap.

I still can imagine he should be punished but I fear that the conditions for a fair trial are not reunited...

0 Replies

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

Engineer wrote:
What do you think would be a fair sentence? What would a French court today hand down for a guilty plea on a similar crime? (I not trying to jump you here; I really want to know.)

I replied to this question already.

Just check out my post about the penalties incurred for "unlawful sexual intercourse".

I just went through the entire thread and searched on "unlawful sexual intercourse" and couldn't find it. A similar Internet search failed to find what a typical French penalty would be for a similar crime. Could you humor me and repost? I did make an effort...

3 Replies

@engineer,

Continuing to search. The laws in Latvia

Quote:

'Sexual intercourse with a person under sixteen (16) years', Article 122 of the Penal Code

*For sexual intercourse with a person under sixteen (16) years old, imprisonment for up to four years

A recent California case

Quote:

RollingStone.com is reporting that former STATIC-X and DOPE guitarist Tripp Eisen has pled guilty to having oral sex with a minor and will serve one year in California State prison on that charge.

On June 24 Eisen accepted a plea bargain in California for "having oral sex with a person younger than fourteen years old and more than ten years younger than him," stemming from a February arrest, according to Orange County Superior Court manager Gai Spickard.

For those who point out that this case involves forcible rape, this is so, but that is not what the state accepted a guilty plea on.

0 Replies

Why Did Roman Polanski Run Away?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know