22
   

Why Did Roman Polanski Run Away?

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 02:45 pm
@georgeob1,
for the record the americans never filed an international arrest warrent till 2005, and polanski is willing to face justice he simply no longer believes that the Americans can administer justice in his case. His legal team has advocated for transfer of the case to the French courts.

Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 02:53 pm
Quote:
Neither do I know the specific terms of our extradition treaties with France


George, France has an extradition treaty with the US since 1996.

As you know, treaties are treacherous entities and some arcanes are never clear.

As so, situations and clauses are difficult to conciliate.

Many times, it's a matter how the country, as a civilization, sees the crime and its due punishment.

All the forces at work here..
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 02:55 pm
@Francis,
Point of Fact: The petition to have this case thrown out of court is scheduled for dec 10. It is the next opportunity for justice to prevail.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 03:02 pm
@Francis,
Francis wrote:


George, France has an extradition treaty with the US since 1996.

As you know, treaties are treacherous entities and some arcanes are never clear.

As so, situations and clauses are difficult to conciliate.

Many times, it's a matter how the country, as a civilization, sees the crime and its due punishment.

All the forces at work here..


Are you saying we didn't have such a treaty before 1996? That surprises me.

For the rest... I suspect you are correct.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 03:04 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I did not expect to see an answer; the questions were only rhetorical.


Oh no they weren't. They were just stupid. You have too much need to win to be in a grown up debate about anything.

Fancy you of all people, armed to the teeth, seeing threats everywhere, talking about paranoid delusion.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 03:10 pm
@georgeob1,
No treaty with France for this particular offense. The 50 year assertion is nonsense. His conditional plea to a lesser offense was the limit to his exposure. If the Judge really sought to bank him 50 years; he would have had to have rejected the plea agreement (which is well within his discretion), and Polanski would have had every opportunity to face a jury of his peers. This is the same dilemma faced by every party to a plea agreement. It isn't worth the paper it's written on until the Judge Signs the Final Order.

This discretionary power is currently being challenged in Wisconsin’s SC, because plenty of people think the bargaining power of the D.A.’s office depends upon the Judge going along with plea bargains. Historically, however, SC’s have consistently ruled that the Judge has the final discretion and personally, I agree. Judge’s also have the discretion to throw out jury verdicts when they feel that justice would not be served by accepting them. All of this is reviewable by higher courts, as it should be. That is the protection Polanski, just like every other perp, should have had to rely on… if indeed there ever was any truth to the asserted Judge’s intentions.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 03:12 pm
@hawkeye10,
and polanski is willing to face justice he simply no longer believes that the Americans can administer justice in his case. His legal team has advocated for transfer of the case to the French courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too bad that he raped the child in the US instead of France and I am surely in agreement with his legal team that the days of slaps on the wrist for child rape had long since pass in the US if not in France,

0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 03:18 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
if indeed there ever was any truth to the asserted Judge’s intentions.


IF? Both the defense and the prosecution were in the room when the judge spoke his intention, there is no doubt about what he said. Are you claiming that the Judge might have LIED? This being the same judge that you claim Polanski should have stood in front of the next day expecting a 50 year sentence?
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 03:25 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
I did not expect to see an answer; the questions were only rhetorical.


Oh no they weren't. They were just stupid. You have too much need to win to be in a grown up debate about anything.

Fancy you of all people, armed to the teeth, seeing threats everywhere, talking about paranoid delusion.
There is nothing to "win", as u put it.
U spout several varieties of nonsense, Spendius.
I can 't take anything that u say seriously. (Maybe u are too drunk to reason today.)
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 03:26 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
if indeed there ever was any truth to the asserted Judge’s intentions.


IF? Both the defense and the prosecution were in the room when the judge spoke his intention, there is no doubt about what he said. Are you claiming that the Judge might have LIED? This being the same judge that you claim Polanski should have stood in front of the next day expecting a 50 year sentence?
Yes If, moron. 50 years was not an available punishment for the crime Polanski had conditionally plead to. It is NOT in the Judge's discretion to change the crime that Polanski's plea be applied to. On the absurdly outside chance the Judge committed such an absurd abuse of power, it would have been overturned by the first superior court that heard about it. The story simply doesn't add up. It sounds like the Judge planned on rejecting the plea arrangement; which means only that Polanski was still facing the original set of charges. He wouldn’t have been sentenced to 50 years the next day, because absent the plea deal, he would have plead NOT GUILTY and been afforded the same opportunity to prove his innocence at trial as any other perp.
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 03:30 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Is that an invitation for me to try a few states you "maybe" in today?

Saying that you can't take anything I say seriously is a lady argument and a species of Ignore.
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 03:33 pm
Bill wrote:
No treaty with France for this particular offense.


Playing on words, Bill?

There's an extradition treaty between US and France than can cover this case, even though rape is not explicitly referred to.

However, the treaty stipulates that both states are free to extradite, or not, their own nationals.

The treaty was updated in 2002, with previous modifications in 1996 and 1970, after the initial extradition convention 0f 1907.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 03:35 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
the judges behaviour was of course absurd, which is reason Polanski felt it was in his best interest to not wait around to see what would happen. If I had to guess it would be that the judge wanted off of the hook, that he did not care if Polanski ran or withdrew his plea, either way the judge would be clear. This is outragous behaviour for a judge, the process is not about him, what he thinks is best for him.

But Polanski booked, he was not tried in absence, and there is no way to have a fair trial after all of these years. It should be over.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 03:40 pm
@Francis,
Francis wrote:

Bill wrote:
No treaty with France for this particular offense.


Playing on words, Bill?

There's an extradition treaty between US and France than can cover this case, even though rape is not explicitly referred to.

However, the treaty stipulates that both states are free to extradite, or not, their own nationals.

The treaty was updated in 2002, with previous modifications in 1996 and 1970, after the initial extradition convention 0f 1907.
Not playing with words, and I haven't researched it myself. I was relaying what I have read in the links provided.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  3  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 03:43 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

the judges behaviour was of course absurd, which is reason Polanski felt it was in his best interest to not wait around to see what would happen. If I had to guess it would be that the judge wanted off of the hook, that he did not care if Polanski ran or withdrew his plea, either way the judge would be clear. This is outragous behaviour for a judge, the process is not about him, what he thinks is best for him.

But Polanski booked, he was not tried in absence, and there is no way to have a fair trial after all of these years. It should be over.


That it was in Polanski's self-interest to flee is obvious - he had money and could readily escape the penalty for his crimes. However, that is not the same thing as legal or moral justification for doing so.

As to what the (now dead) Judge did, didn't do or thought, or, more to the point, what may have motivated him - I submit that you simply don't know. The fact is that established judicial process was still available to Polanski, and the State of California was acting within the law in prosecuting him. Polanski, by his own illegal action in fleeing, is the principal cause that justice was not done.

You are of course welcome to your opinion, but have no basis to insist that others agree.
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 03:46 pm
@hawkeye10,
There are remedies for outrageous judicial behavior. They don't include the accused deciding he's above the law and fleeing the country. In this case it has been asserted that the Judge was going to engage in outrageous behavior. This does not excuse Polanski's further criminal behavior. The poor black perp could be victimized by an outrageous Judge too. If this takes place, an appellate court has the responsibility to correct it.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 03:48 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
You are of course welcome to your opinion, but have no basis to insist that others agree.


Obviously...

and this is where Polanski's life up till that point shaped his perception of what was happening to him in that court of law. When I read about his life, and imagine myself as him on that day, I can fully imagine that i would have chosen the path that Polanski did. which is why I cant get too worked up about him running.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 03:56 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Is that an invitation for me to try a few states you "maybe" in today?

Saying that you can't take anything I say seriously is a lady argument and a species of Ignore.
Admittedly, u r not as nasty as the others that I have cast down
into the nether regions of my world, below oblivion, but your foolishness is starting to annoy me.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 04:07 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

There are remedies for outrageous judicial behavior. They don't include the accused deciding he's above the law and fleeing the country. In this case it has been asserted that the Judge was going to engage in outrageous behavior. This does not excuse Polanski's further criminal behavior. The poor black perp could be victimized by an outrageous Judge too. If this takes place, an appellate court has the responsibility to correct it.
In candor, I must say that the fugitive has proven
that fleeing was indeed included among his viable remedies,
and his choice of that remedy resulted in his enjoying life
a lot better than if he had hung around in California
and took his chances at trial.

It remains to be seen what happens now; it coud be anything.
From defendant 's perspective, as an old man,
if he dies in prison after a short time, that 's better
than living in there for a long sentence in his youth.

Its not very likely that he cares about the black perps.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 04:11 pm

In retrospect, I 'll be that he believes that he was OVERCONFIDENT
in flying around so freely, leaving France.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/02/2022 at 02:16:04