Why Did Roman Polanski Run Away?

An additional reason for the statutes of limitations, which does NOT apply in Roman 's case,
is that after a period of time, designated by the legislature, a citizen who may be a possible
future defendant in civil or criminal litigation shoud be able to get a good night 's sleep,
putting his old problems behind him and concern himself with the future.

Without the statutes of limitations, citizens who are factually without blame and not brought to trial,
nor served with judicial process, but who are potentially threatened with litigation woud have
to sweat it out for the rest of their lives, regardless of the evidentiary state-of-affairs,
be it good, bad or indifferent.

How good the evidence is can only be known in hindsight.

David

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

roger wrote:
Is statute of limitations even an issue in this case?

No, and that has already been pointed out to hawkeye but he's still using its principles to advocate that the time passed makes justice unobtainable. I'm trying to explain why it isn't a legitimate legal or a moral argument.

Morally, his cowardly evasive actions added to his original crime. Many victims of rape refuse to press charges (in states where that's an option) or even admit to the fact they were raped precisely because the trauma of facing their victimizer, the public, the press, etc. seems like more punishment than the possible closure from seeing justice done can bring. Probably, usually, is. This woman, kid at the time, was brave enough to come forward, had to deal with the enormous ugly of greater than normal public exposure, probably made worse by details that were a bit more taboo at the time... yet was denied the probably, in all likelihood, always inadequate satisfaction of seeing the filth who wronged her punished for his deed.

Vs. He made some nifty movies... and might have been sentenced to the maximum penalty for a relatively petty offense that he was able to bargain in bad faith for... just like any other rapist with a potent enough legal team to secure such a generous plea bargain in the first place. I don't get it.

0 Replies

If a criminal, any criminal, departs hence to avoid penalties,
that does not reflect upon his courage nor cowardice;
he is simply acting in furtherance of his own best interests,
as everyone shoud be expected to do.

David

0 Replies

Quote:

Samantha Geimer, now 45 and a married mother of three, sued Polanski and received an undisclosed settlement. She is among those calling for the case to be tossed out.

In court papers filed in January, she said, "I am no longer a 13-year-old child. I have dealt with the difficulties of being a victim, have surmounted and surpassed them with one exception.

"Every time this case is brought to the attention of the court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others. That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/29/polanski.filmmakers.protest/index.html

I LIKE this woman!

0 Replies

She is feisty !

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Good points, David.

1 Reply

@roger,

Thank u, Roger.

David

0 Replies

I cannot believe the idiots here who seem to believe that a man who pled guilty to child molestation and then fled the country to avoid the possibility of jail time should now get a pass. If this guy's name was Father Roman Polanski, every last one of you would be crying for his return and for the authorities to lock him up and throw away the key. Lucky for him I guess that he never went into the priesthood.

The man committed a crime against a child. Drugged her and raped her. She was 13. So how many fathers out there with girls would be ok with some guy doing the same to their daughter and then fleeing the country. Bet you'd still want justice after all these years, wouldn't you?

The gist on here seems to be that because he's so talented and because he's been good all these years and because the judge may have made statements to the effect that he was going to put Polanski away for a long time that we should just let him go. Sorry, it does not fly with me. He raped a 13 year old girl and for the last 30+ years has gotten away unpunished for it. I say it is about time that he is sent to the deepest darkest cell we can find and let him rot for as long as the law allows.

And in case it is not obvious, I have absolutely no pity on anyone who harms a child in any way. It is a dispicable crime and letting this man get away with it only serves to show others that our system of laws are only for those who don't have the means to avoid punishment.

2 Replies

@CoastalRat,

"it only serves to show others that our system of laws are only for those who don't have the means to avoid punishment"

there is a lot of truth in this small statement...

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Whoever does not like it,
can find somewhere that he prefers.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

that's a very intelligent and well thought out reply, dave.

thank you for your time.

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

U r welcome; I worked on it all last nite.

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

I cannot believe the idiots here who seem to believe that a man who pled guilty to child molestation and then fled the country to avoid the possibility of jail time should now get a pass. If this guy's name was Father Roman Polanski, every last one of you would be crying for his return and for the authorities to lock him up and throw away the key. Lucky for him I guess that he never went into the priesthood.

The man committed a crime against a child. Drugged her and raped her. She was 13. So how many fathers out there with girls would be ok with some guy doing the same to their daughter and then fleeing the country. Bet you'd still want justice after all these years, wouldn't you?

The gist on here seems to be that because he's so talented and because he's been good all these years and because the judge may have made statements to the effect that he was going to put Polanski away for a long time that we should just let him go. Sorry, it does not fly with me. He raped a 13 year old girl and for the last 30+ years has gotten away unpunished for it. I say it is about time that he is sent to the deepest darkest cell we can find and let him rot for as long as the law allows.

And in case it is not obvious, I have absolutely no pity on anyone who harms a child in any way. It is a dispicable crime and letting this man get away with it only serves to show others that our system of laws are only for those who don't have the means to avoid punishment.

I don't care about any of the other arguments against or for him; I care about the fact that the victim settled out of court with Polanski and just wants this all to go away, it's very difficult on her family.

I don't think he deserves to escape justice, but then again, I don't think he's being gone after right now in the name of Justice. I'm not crying for him and I won't speak out against whatever punishment he gets, but let's not pretend that this is happening in the name of truth and decency, because it isn't.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You're right about that Cy. It is not being done in the name of truth and decency. It's being done in the name of justice. You know, making someone accept the consequences of their actions.

But hey, if anyone here wants to come down on the side of a child rapist not having to pay for his crime, that's fine by me. If you ever have a child who is sexually abused, I hope you are still just as understanding and forgiving and push for him not to be punished.

2 Replies

@CoastalRat,

The will of the VICTIM shoud prevail.
Government is just wasting resources.

If she demanded to be avenged,
then that woud be different.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

in real life, dave, the victim gets very little say.

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Her opinion shoud count for more than OURs.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

can't legislate should, dave...

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

can't legislate should, dave...

because we are not members of a legislature

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

You're right about that Cy. It is not being done in the name of truth and decency. It's being done in the name of justice. You know, making someone accept the consequences of their actions.

But hey, if anyone here wants to come down on the side of a child rapist not having to pay for his crime, that's fine by me. If you ever have a child who is sexually abused, I hope you are still just as understanding and forgiving and push for him not to be punished.

Oh, get off it. This isn't 'justice.' It's a prosecutor looking to make a name for himself by netting a high-profile target who settled long ago with the victim of his crime. In the process, the prosecutor released the testimony of the victim from years ago to the media, and exposed her and her family to a considerable amount of embarrassment and shame.

Does Polanski deserve to be tried for his crime? Yes.

Does he deserve immunity b/c he's a famous director? No.

Should we take into account the fact that the victim herself filed to have the case dismissed in 2008, citing 'that decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor's focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family?" Yes, I think we should.

I hope that if I have a child that is abused, and if the child and myself have settled with the abuser and wish to move on with our lives, and in fact have publicly forgiven him for his sins (as the victim here has), that those who are interested in 'Justice' would realize that it isn't always achieved by overzealous prosecution and the release of embarrassing and highly personal details to the media.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Why Did Roman Polanski Run Away?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know