Why Did Roman Polanski Run Away?

The German criminal code has one chapter with two titles about that - limitation about prosecution and limitation about enforcement (online here).

Roman Polanski’s family yesterday praised the role played by Nicolas Sarkozy in securing the film director’s release on bail after two months in a Swiss prison.

The French President “has been very effective” behind the scenes, according to the film director’s sister-in-law Mathilde Seigner, as Mr Polanski prepared to move from a cell to house arrest in his luxury chalet in the exclusive Alpine village of Gstaad.

Francis... what motivates you to pretend otherwise?

Bill wrote:

Francis... what motivates you to pretend otherwise?

I think it's quite obvious, Bill.

The American justice didn't do its job for years, then made a media show about the case, gathering all the self-rigtheous of the country to voice out loud.

Then , might is right, "forced" Switzerland to entrap Polanski.

Switzerland could have arrested Polanski previously, as an international arrest order was issued in 2005.

Meanwhile, Polanski came often to spend time in Switzerland, in his chalet in Gstaad.

This is sufficient enough for me not to believe it's going to be fair...

Are there any other confessed child-rapists you believe should be allowed to evade punishment because they are rich or famous?

Quote:

Are there any other confessed child-rapists you believe should be allowed to evade punishment because they are rich or famous?

you know damn well that the argument is that the Americans defaulted our rights to Polanski, you are just playing stupid at this point.

He has hired star US attorney Reid Weingarten, who is pulling out all the stops to prevent the extradition.

His appeal will give Polanski and his lawyers six months.

They are now asking for the Polish-born director to be put under house arrest during that time in his luxurious Swiss chalet in the ski resort of Gstaad.

Weingarten will begin his argument by making two points. Firstly, that the sexual offence cannot be used as a reason for extradition, since Polanski’s original sentence was supposed to be one year.

And secondly, that the director has already served his time by undergoing a psychiatric examination of 42 days

Branham explained that the Constitution's bar against ex post facto laws " that is, retroactive criminal laws -- would mean that Polanski "can't be punished more severely than the law in existence at the time of his crimes allowed"; therefore, his sentence could not exceed the statutory maximum that existed in 1977. Given the change in the law, however -- which reduced the statutory maximum -- this is not Polanski's problem.

What about the influence of changing mores? Professor Branham noted that "changing views and norms on the severity of sex crimes with minors appropriately could affect the terms of any plea agreement into which the prosecutor might agree to enter. And these changed attitudes potentially and constitutionally could influence how the judge exercises his or her sentencing discretion within the parameters set by the 1977 statutes. In other words, the judge might sentence Polanski more severely within the range set by the statute than the judge would have if the case had come before her in the 1970s."

Finally, Professor Branham added, "Polanski's escape, which can be interpreted as reflecting an unwillingness to acknowledge responsibility for his crimes and a lack of remorse for them, can be a factor that will aggravate his sentences for the sex crimes, though not beyond the maximum sentence permitted in 1977." And, of course, his escape was another crime.

Based on Professor Branham's analysis, not to mention his fugitive status, sentencing will no doubt be much worse for Polanski now than it would have been in 1977-1978, a fact that he and his attorneys surely appreciate.

not likely to be honored??

LOS ANGELES " The woman who was raped by fugitive director Roman Polanski three decades ago when she was 13 has lashed out at the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, saying she is being victimized again by prosecutors' focus on lurid details of what happened to her.

Samantha Geimer, 45, filed a legal declaration Monday asking that the charge against Polanski be dismissed in the interest of saving her from further trauma as the case is publicized anew.

Now a wife and mother of three children, Geimer said that the insistence by prosecutors and the court that Polanski must appear in person to seek dismissal "is a joke, a cruel joke being played on me."

Geimer said she believes prosecutors are reciting sexually explicit details of the case to distract from their office's own wrongdoing 31 years ago. The alleged wrongdoing was brought to light in the documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," which prompted the director's lawyer to file a motion for dismissal.

A hearing is set for Jan. 21 on Polanski's motion for dismissal. But prosecutors have said he must appear in person _ an act which would risk his arrest.

"If Polanski cannot stand before the court to make this request, I, as the victim, can and I, as the victim do," she said in the declaration signed at her home in Kilauea, Hawaii.

In a motion filed Jan. 6, Deputy District Attorney David Walgren provided sexually explicit descriptions of the 1977 assault of Geimer during a photo shoot by Polanski. It included extensive testimony from grand jury transcripts at the time which included graphic details of the incident. The details of Polanski's sexual activity with the girl had never before been described in legal documents

Geimer said she was disappointed that the district attorney "has, yet one more time, given great publicity to the lurid details of those events for all to read again."

"True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother," she said. "I have become a victim of the actions of the district attorney."

Geimer suggested that her feelings should have been considered and she should have been consulted before the prosecution document was filed.

"My views as a victim, my feelings as a victim, or my desires as a victim were never considered or even inquired into by the district attorney prior to the filing," she said. "It is clear to me that because the district attorney's office has been accused of wrongdoing, it has recited the lurid details of the case to distract attention from the wrongful conduct of the district attorney's office as well as the judge who was then assigned to the case."

The 75-year-old Polanski, living in exile in France, wants to return to the United States. While in exile, he won the 2002 Oscar for directing "The Pianist," a Holocaust drama.

Geimer said that the decision for Polanski to plead guilty to a single count of unlawful sexual intercourse was intended to save her from a trial which would have drawn worldwide attention.

"I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr. Polanski may have caused me as a child," she said, adding she now believes Polanski fled "because the judicial system did not work."

She said her views have been well known since 1995 when she wrote a letter to then-District Attorney Gil Garcetti suggesting the case be dismissed. She said she raised it again in 1997 when the case was brought to Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler.

Sandi Gibbons, the district attorney's spokeswoman, said the office would have no comment because the declaration is part of pending litigation.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The German criminal code has one chapter with two titles about that - limitation about prosecution and limitation about enforcement (online here).

Walter, for the sake of honesty, please state the obvious. When you provided that link; you knew very well Polanski qualified for no Statute of Limitations under German Law.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The German criminal code has one chapter with two titles about that - limitation about prosecution and limitation about enforcement (online here).

Walter, for the sake of honesty, please state the obvious. When you provided that link; you knew very well Polanski qualified for no Statute of Limitations under German Law.

I'm more than sure (and I really speak of my own experiences as probation officer) that it is doubtful.

As an offence - there would be those limitations.
Being on bail - you need a warrant. And it is uncertain if there still would be warrant after such a long time; but such might happen.

If I may inquire, O' Bill:
if the defendant-fugitive sought your professional services
in his defense, woud u be able to bring yourself to defend him?

Yes I see nothing wrong with letting a man get away with raping a 13 year old child by running away.

How dare we go after such a wonderful person after all he paid off the victim so what the harm?