22
   

Why Did Roman Polanski Run Away?

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  0  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 11:59 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Fair enough David. For the record, he plead on what I would consider a sweetheart deal since it didn't even address the fact that he had fed a kid qualudes and champagne before raping her. The guy is a total scumbag.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 12:04 am
@OCCOM BILL,

That 's certainly a despicable thing to do.
I did not know that it was that bad.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 12:18 am
Bill wrote:
The guy is a total scumbag.


I'd say that he was a total scumbag at the time of the deed.

The guy showed redeeming qualites over the last 32 years..

Considering that someone cannot evolve and get better over such a large period is a formula for despair...
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 01:01 am
Quote:
He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski's mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland. His pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson, though for a time Polanski himself was a suspect.

I am certain there are many who will harrumph that, following this arrest, justice was done at last. But Polanski is 76. To put him on trial or keep him in jail does not serve society in general or his victim in particular. Nor does it prove the doggedness and earnestness of the American legal system. If he weren't famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/?hpid=opinionsbox1
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 01:25 am
@Francis,
Francis wrote:

Bill wrote:
The guy is a total scumbag.


I'd say that he was a total scumbag at the time of the deed.

The guy showed redeeming qualites over the last 32 years..

Considering that someone cannot evolve and get better over such a large period is a formula for despair...
Perhaps he's been a saint since the dirty deed, perhaps not. I don't know and I don't care... beyond believing it should considered at sentencing, which it would of course be.

To let him walk, simply because he had the means to flee and avoid extradition, would further the ugly truth that those with more means do not have to follow the same rules as those with less. It is crucial in any legal system to at least try to apply justice equally between the classes.

The rich and famous are, or should be, no more exempt from the rule of law than any other citizen. What do you suppose would happen to a poor black man who drugged and raped a 13 year old in Beverly Hills, and then fled? How many do you suppose would go to bat for him saying, "ya but, he's been a good guy since." If all men are indeed created equal in the eyes of the law, letting the rich guy off for using his considerable means to avoid justice is unacceptable. It is repugnant to our legal system, decency, and the notion of fair play.
Francis
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 02:14 am
@OCCOM BILL,
How easy is public judgement, Bill?

This case is not as simple as it seems and you just underline the points that justifiy your own view of it..

Mind I'm not defending the initial deed..
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 06:35 am
@Francis,
Does anyone know the justification used by the French and Polish governments to refuse sending him back to the US? Isn't there an extradition treaty in place between the US and France?
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 06:44 am
@Francis,
Crimes like this have no potential for circumstances that are redeeming for the felon. Justice needs to be addressed. He needs to at least stand up and apologize and let a court deliberate on a, prehaps, reduced sentence (or not). I cant abide the thumbing his nose at the justice system and getting off .
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 07:33 am
@engineer,
Yes, but this case falls under special conditions.

Does United States allow extraditition of its own nationals?
Francis
 
  0  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 07:37 am
@farmerman,
Same position as Bill, Polanski is condemned already by the vox populi..


Sure, justice has to be done.

But, given the circumstances, there's no certainty that a fair trial will take place.

I'll readily follow the case to see how it ends..
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 07:57 am
@Francis,
I thought they did if they were accused on a crime overseas and an extradition request was filed, but it may vary country to country. Here is a recent case of a US citizen sent to Lithuania.

http://vilnius.usembassy.gov/05-27-04.html
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 08:10 am
@engineer,
OK, found some applicable references from the State Department coverletter on the US-France treaty.

Quote:
Article 2(1) defines extraditable offenses as acts punished
under the laws of both States by deprivation of liberty for a
maximum of at least one year, or by a more severe penalty.

There is some question as to whether Polanski would have gotten a year with his agreement.

Quote:
Article 3(1) declares that neither State has an obligation
to extradite its own nationals, but the executive authority of
the United States shall have the discretion to do so. The
nationality of the person sought shall be the nationality of
the person at the time the offense was committed.
Article 3(2) requires a State that refuses an extradition
request solely on the basis of the nationality of the person
sought to submit the case to its authorities for prosecution,
if so requested by the Requesting State.

No agreement with France to extradite citizens.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 08:28 am
@Francis,
Francis wrote:

Yes, but this case falls under special conditions.
What special conditions? Which part of drugging and raping kids and then fleeing justice is okay with you? Please be specific.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 08:31 am
@Francis,
Francis wrote:

Same position as Bill, Polanski is condemned already by the vox populi..
Pure silliness, Francis. He hasn't been condemned... he's been convicted via his own admission of guilt under the threat of being charged with his other crimes. Why is it okay for this guy to get away with drugging and raping kids and fleeing justice, if it's not okay for others to do the same? What precisely is it that makes you think he has some special right?
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 09:54 am
@OCCOM BILL,
Bill, you are evading my point on purpose.

I find your view a bit manichean.

As you know, there's 254 shades of grey..

I didn't say he (Roman Polanski) has any special right.

Raping and fleeing are crimes.

What I'm saying is: given the circumstances, there's no certainty that a fair trial will take place.

That's all..
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 10:04 am
@Francis,

Francis wrote:

Bill, you are evading my point on purpose.

I find your view a bit manichean.

As you know, there's 254 shades of grey..

I didn't say he (Roman Polanski) has any special right.

Raping and fleeing are crimes.

What I'm saying is: given the circumstances, there's no certainty that a fair trial will take place.

That's all..
There is never a "guarantee" that a fair trial will take place. We have remedies for the occasions they do not. I've little doubt that a man of Polanski's considerable means employed competent counsel who advised him of this. In the original case, however, Polanski waived his right to a trial and took a deal to reduce his exposure... so that excuse makes no sense whatsoever.

I am not evading your point. You haven't really made one yet. You want this guy to get a pass, but you've offered no coherent reason he should get one.

0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  0  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 10:07 am
Bill wrote:
took a deal to reduce his exposure


And then he knew the attorney (general?) was not going to respect the deal...
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 10:07 am
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
What special conditions? Which part of drugging and raping kids and then fleeing justice is okay with you? Please be specific.


Bill this gig is getting old. This is no way to argue.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 10:42 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
What special conditions? Which part of drugging and raping kids and then fleeing justice is okay with you? Please be specific.


Bill this gig is getting old. This is no way to argue.
What do you suggest, Robert? How would you go about demonstrating the absurdity of the ambiguous "special conditions" excuse? Or perhaps you could articulate what these “special conditions” are and why they’re more compelling than the drugging, raping, and fleeing offenses?
Robert Gentel
 
  5  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 10:51 am
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
What do you suggest, Robert?


I suggest that you understand that mere disagreement with you doesn't mean that they condone drugging and raping kids. I suggest that you consider the wide range of possibilities in between. I suggest that you consider that they may be telling the truth when they explicitly tell you that they don't condone such things before you accuse them of it (which is exactly what happened with Francis).

For example, most people are just not familiar with the facts of the case (and your "******* kids" stuff might just be your usual hyperbole in these matters to them). You have already seen one person you did this to say as much, that they just didn't know what you knew about it.

You might start by outlining the case dispassionately, so that they don't write it off as your inordinate zeal. I happen to agree with you in that he should face justice for his crime, but saying people who don't share your passion for the case are ok with raping children isn't a fair argument.

Before I read up on it I had thought that the crime was less severe than it apparently was. It wasn't even clear based on some media reports if the crime were just related to photographing the model nude or if it actually involved rape.

So you might do something like bring evidence, instead of invective, to the table. Here's a good link:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

Quote:
The teenager's troubling--and contemporaneous--account of her abuse at Polanski's hands begins with her posing twice for topless photos that the director said were for French Vogue. The girl then told prosecutors how Polanski directed her to, "Take off your underwear" and enter the Jacuzzi, where he photographed her naked. Soon, the director, who was then 43, joined her in the hot tub. He also wasn't wearing any clothes and, according to Gailey's testimony, wrapped his hands around the child's waist.

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."


The special circumstances people speak of might include that the child reportedly (according to Jack Nicholson's girlfriend) could have passed for 25, that a miscarriage of justice appeared to be underway, and that the victim has sought not only to end the prosecution but much more, such as allowing him to accept awards in the US. Some may feel that this is because of remorse for exaggerated or false accusations. Of course it could also be because of the civil settlement. But it's all just speculation, and just doesn't mean that people are ok with raping minors if they don't feel exactly the same way as you about this. It just means there is a lot of conflicting information out there.

I don't think any of it changes the core of the case myself, but many people just aren't familiar with the basic case, and may just be familiar with the surrounding circumstances. Hell they may just not share the righteous indignation you favor for such crimes.

None of that means they condone the crimes.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/02/2022 at 05:24:50