Why Did Roman Polanski Run Away?

As an Offense, there would be those limitations in the United States too. But the statute is frozen, essentially, as soon as the perp is officially sought. In your link to German Statutory Law, Section 78c (1) 1-9 appear to be essentially similar to those in the U.S... and I'd wager were derived from the same Common Law. I can only assume German Case Law would interpret the obvious the same way: The statute of Limitations clock on Polanski was first frozen by his indictment and will remain so for as long as there's a warrant for his arrest.

Statutes of Limitation exist to prevent untimely accusations, not untimely convictions or sentences. I doubt that any State, including France, has their Statutes of Limitations written in such a way that they would provide shelter to a fleeing criminal. Such a legislative intent would be counterintuitive to the point of absurdity.

You are good in distorting someone else's words, Bill.

First, where did I say that he should have a special status?

I'l claming the "usual status" for him.

Second, is Polanski indicted already of rape?

I'd thought he only admitted "unlawfull sex intercouse"..

Quote:

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.

Emphasys added by me.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

As an Offense, there would be those limitations in the United States too. But the statute is frozen, essentially, as soon as the perp is officially sought. In your link to German Statutory Law, Section 78c (1) 1-9 appear to be essentially similar to those in the U.S... and I'd wager were derived from the same Common Law. I can only assume German Case Law would interpret the obvious the same way: The statute of Limitations clock on Polanski was first frozen by his indictment and will remain so for as long as there's a warrant for his arrest.

Statutes of Limitation exist to prevent untimely accusations, not untimely convictions or sentences. I doubt that any State, including France, has their Statutes of Limitations written in such a way that they would provide shelter to a fleeing criminal. Such a legislative intent would be counterintuitive to the point of absurdity.

You may doubt and wager what you want: we (= Germany, France and other European countries) don't have common law but Roman law. (Common law didn't institute these statutes until the 16th/17th century.)

The Federal Court of Justice of Germany had decided in a different ruling as an aside that 15 years after the interruption of the running of the statute of limitations (BGH, 12.06.2001 - 5 StR 606/00) this long period had to be given a given preferential consideration when deciding.

So do you wish Bill to put the lady through what she has asked for her not to be put through for no other reason that to provide catharsis for your moral outrage and sense of justice.

Do you not accept her word that she thinks her kids will be harmed by a trial?

A crime that provides a potential sentence of 10 years or more, is given a 20 year Statute of limitations in Germany (per your link).

would be rampant and this would be repugnant to the administration of justice.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

A crime that provides a potential sentence of 10 years or more, is given a 20 year Statute of limitations in Germany (per your link).

Correct. But here you can't get more than five years - or just a fine.

Quote:

would be rampant and this would be repugnant to the administration of justice.

If it were not already clear that you have no concern for justice your wholesale dismissal of the best interests of the one primarily wronged by the crime would be illuminating.

All, you care about is retribution. Not all of the world considers thuggery superior to justice though, JSYK.

You don't respect the lady's wishes then or her concern for her kids?

Is it the fees or the drooling?

The law has a spirit as well as a letter. Ignore the former and you bring the law into disrepute even if you are nice and safe with all the right boxes ticked. If the cops operated the law like you seem to want the whole system would grind to a halt.

No one has offered a single justification for why a rapist should get away with rape and running from justice.

Yeah--but you are the one exercised about the rich bloke. What about all the others which I think you are encouraging by your focus.

No case has been made that anybody was a rapist yet as far as I'm aware.

And this was no ordinary child so knock off milking that udder. She was working, no doubt with a pushy Mum behind her, for a model agency in Hollywood.

it is about us, about having a justice system that administers, you know, justice.

No one but other kids and sickos like Shorteyes would find her sexually attractive. And only a Shorteyed sicko like Roman Polanski would drug her and rape her repeatedly, over her repeated objections. Seriously Spendy; do you see anything but a kid in that picture? If she was your sister or daughter and some 44 year old sicko did that to her; you'd blame her for wanting to be a model? That's pretty sick.

SILVER: Well, what the judge did was frankly outrageous. We had agreed to a plea bargain. It wasn't what the prosecution wanted, it certainly wasn't what Polanski wanted, but it was what we wanted. We were the victim and this is the way in which Samantha would not be in trial. Samantha would be -- her name would not be exposed at the time. And she would be allowed to recover.

And the plea was proposed to the judge, the judge approved it. And then frankly the day before he called us in the chambers and said he was getting a great deal of pressure and a great deal -- he was concerned about criticism of him in the press. And he was going to sentence Polanski rather than to time served, which is what we agreed to, to 50 years. That's a long -- big difference. And...

KING: Told you that.

SILVER: Yes, told us that. And he Told us other things. He directed Mr. Dalton, Polanski's lawyer, to say certain things during court. He directed the prosecutor, Mr. Guncin (ph), to say certain things the next day. Directed me to do things. This is unheard of.

KING: Inviting him to flee?

SILVER: I don't know about that.

KING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 50 years.

SILVER: Well, I don't know about inviting him to flee. But he also said that he might consider reducing it if Polanski would self- deport himself. This a state court judge, he has no jurisdiction over immigration, naturalization matters. So this change of position by the judge excused Polanski. And there was an agreement. An agreement that was a good agreement. It addressed all of the interests of the parties and frankly I still think it ought to be enforce