Why Did Roman Polanski Run Away?

@OmSigDAVID,

Ok, so let's carry that thought process out. Let's say you have a married daughter and some rich dude kills her. Her husband settles with him financially and publicly declares his forgiveness and that he should not be punished. Since he is the next of kin, that should be the final say in the matter, right? Your view would still be that the law should then look the other way and the guy should not be punished, right?

Or, to have a closer analogy, you believe that someone who has the financial resources to pay off his victims should be unpunished by society if he rapes children while some poor schmuck who has no money should go to jail because he can't pay off the victim.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You've convinced me Cy. Just let the man escape punishment. After all, he's famous and done a lot of good. Just because he raped a 13 year old one time and was already given a break and only had to plead guilty to molestation charges shouldn't matter. Such a nice guy. Made some really good movies and such. He's not really bad just because he RAPED a 13 year old. Let him go. Let him live his life.

And while we are at it, let's cut loose all the other child molesters in the country. After all, I'm sure many of them are really nice guys. I hear some were even priests and such. Oh, wait, they are rich and famous and can't afford to settle up with the family financially. So they get to stay in jail.

Yeah, equal justice for all is so old fashioned.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

You've convinced me Cy. Just let the man escape punishment. After all, he's famous and done a lot of good.

I don't think you read what I wrote; because I said his fame or other arguments in his favor are immaterial. I wouldn't care if he was just some regular dude. The parties involved consider the case settled, and that's good enough for me.

Quote:

Just because he raped a 13 year old one time and was already given a break and only had to plead guilty to molestation charges shouldn't matter. Such a nice guy. Made some really good movies and such. He's not really bad just because he RAPED a 13 year old. Let him go. Let him live his life.

More bad argumentation from you. Your appeals to emotion don't change the facts in this case.

Quote:

And while we are at it, let's cut loose all the other child molesters in the country. After all, I'm sure many of them are really nice guys. I hear some were even priests and such. Oh, wait, they are rich and famous and can't afford to settle up with the family financially. So they get to stay in jail.

Yeah, equal justice for all is so old fashioned.

Now you are combining Appealing to Extremes with just plain being ridiculous. This has no relation whatsoever to what I wrote or what the actual argument I made was. It is an unrelated point that you are throwing up in an attempt to win an argument with emotional appeals. Weak.

Your refusal to take the wishes of the victim into account is rather ridiculous. Who are you trying to get Justice for? Certainly not the victim, the continued attention only makes her and her family's life hell.

Your insistence on making this a 100% black and white issue, where only your position can be considered the Just one, isn't displaying a good grasp of all the elements in play in this case. Polanski's life, his history, his career, and his fame and fortune have nothing to do with it. The wishes of the victim have everything to do with it. Try having some respect for actual people, instead of a nebulous sense of 'Justice.'

I would hope that if you didn't want your family dragged through the mud, your children embarrassed and shamed at school, and the media hounding you for years, that your wishes would be respected. I doubt that you would be signing the same tune if your life was turned into a ******* mess over something you thought had gone away long ago, and that you had forgiven.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

So the enforcement of our laws should be left up to the victim and if the criminal can get up enough money to pay off the victim, then he should go free. Still sounds like the rich get a sweet deal here. Rape, then run to some friendly country until you can pay off the victim, then all will be forgiven. You're free to rape again.

The bottom line is that he has already pled guilty and all that is left for him to face here in the states is his sentencing.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

So the enforcement of our laws should be left up to the victim and if the criminal can get up enough money to pay off the victim, then he should go free. Still sounds like the rich get a sweet deal here.

So, yeah. What country are you from? It certainly doesn't sound like America, b/c this **** happens constantly, every day people get paid off to drop cases and the law doesn't turn around and bring them up years later.

Quote:

Rape, then run to some friendly country until you can pay off the victim, then all will be forgiven. You're free to rape again.

The bottom line is that he has already pled guilty and all that is left for him to face here in the states is his sentencing.

As I said earlier, I do not decry anything that is happening to him; only this foolish notion that 'justice' is being served by doing so. What is truly being served is the sense of self-righteousness that some feel when discussing stuff like this.

I would note that, like many criminals, Polanski entered into a 'plea bargain' in which he plead guilty in return for promise of a lesser sentence. Once again, this is extremely common and happens to people at every level here in America. He fled after the judge of the case started running around bragging how he was going to invalidate the deal at the sentencing and 'put Polanski away for life.' It was highly inappropriate of the judge and the prosecutor. This does not excuse Polanski's fleeing, but it does help explain the circumstances behind his guilty plea.

That's immaterial, however, considering that there is no victim who is being avenged here. You, from time to time, discuss Christianity. So does the victim of this crime, and she has turned the other cheek towards Polanski. She has specifically stated that she believes, after conversations with Polanski, that he deserves forgiveness for his mistake. You may wave your hands and decide that she was 'bought off,' but tell me: is there any amount of money that would buy you off? It is just as likely that the victim in this case is honest in her forgiveness and just wants to move on with her life.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Total bullshit. When he left the country to avoid punishment that was a NEW crime, and the victim is the Justice System in the United States. If all men are indeed created equal, than you can neither buy your way out of crime nor use your considerable means to avoid punishment... and get away with it.

This forgiving victim was still wishing Polanski would return to the country and face the music after 27 years without closure. 27 years she had to deal with the press's bullshit, first because the piece of **** raped her, and it continued because the piece of **** was too cowardly to face judgment.

The precedent you are seeking is basically, All men are created equal, unless one has extraordinary means and successfully waits out the victim’s anger, while hiding from the law. That is truly repugnant, Cyclo. Prosecuting him has everything to do with justice.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

As far as I am concerned, I'm glad she got "bought off" as you put it. As a victim, she had a right to pursue a civil award and his settlement with her took care of that. But you cannot buy your way out of a criminal prosecution. (At least, you're not supposed to be able to do so.)

What she does or says has no bearing on the criminal case against him. And, in case it was not clear, I have no problem with his plea bargain. There are lots of reasons for plea bargains and I accept the necessity of them. But just because he "heard" or "believed" the judge was going to give him a greater sentence than he was willing to accept does not give him the right to run. And the fact that he managed to escape this country for so long does not give him the right to avoid a lawful sentence. I don't care if that sentence is whatever the original plea bargain called for. That's fine by me. But what do we say to the next guy who manages to elude the justice system for a length of time. Does he get a free pass also?

I fully understand my anger here Cy. I believe that sex crimes against children should be punished. End of story. I don't care if the perp is a priest, a cop, a schoolteacher, a church minister or a movie director. I don't care if it takes 1 day or 30 years to bring the pervert to justice. You and others seem to think that sex crimes against children should only be paid for if we can get the person behind bars before they can get away. That's fine.

Hopefully, Polanski will receive the sentence he should have gotten years ago, serve it like he should have years ago, and then he can go on his merry way and hopefully we'll never hear about that pervert again. At least that's my hope.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

Quote:
Ok, so let's carry that thought process out. Let's say you have a married daughter and some rich dude kills her. Her husband settles with him financially and publicly declares his forgiveness and that he should not be punished. Since he is the next of kin, that should be the final say in the matter, right? Your view would still be that the law should then look the other way and the guy should not be punished, right?
This does not work; it is different in principle. In the real case, the victim forgave him and demands that it all be ended. As to your analogy,
I do not recognize husband as her proper agent; (I saw a video of a widower who walked up to his wife 's grave and kicked over her tombstone, in anger and contempt).

Quote:
Or, to have a closer analogy, you believe that someone who has the financial
resources to pay off his victims should be unpunished by society if he rapes
children while some poor schmuck who has no money should go to jail because he can't pay off the victim.
[Does this mean that poor schmucks shoud not commit rapes?]
If a victim can SELL FORGIVENESS, that 's good.
We have civil litigation to accomplish the purpose of restitution.
Sometimes it works; u never know if it will, until its over.
Even if plaintiff wins judgment: collecting the cash can be a big challenge.

The criminal system is to execute vengeance.
That is good when a victim desires to be avenged.
As we see in this case: that is not always how it is.
Take my own case: many decades ago, when I was 11,
I had a one-night stand with a 17 year old girl who approached me
and a more enduring relationship with a 23 year old girl.

According to modern law today, if the same thing happened now,
at least the 23 year old girl woud be prosecuted for "rape"; for SURE,
I 'd have done anything and everything to protect her and defend her from the D.A.
Morally, I have that right.
Morally, the victim in this case has the same right to forgive and forget,
if that 's what she wants to do.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Total bullshit. When he left the country to avoid punishment that was a NEW crime, and the victim is the Justice System in the United States. If all men are indeed created equal, than you can neither buy your way out of crime nor use your considerable means to avoid punishment... and get away with it.

This forgiving victim was still wishing Polanski would return to the country and face the music after 27 years without closure. 27 years she had to deal with the press's bullshit, first because the piece of **** raped her, and it continued because the piece of **** was too cowardly to face judgment.

The precedent you are seeking is basically, All men are created equal, unless one has extraordinary means and successfully waits out the victim’s anger, while hiding from the law. That is truly repugnant, Cyclo. Prosecuting him has everything to do with justice.

I'm fine with prosecuting him for evading sentencing. However, this is different than prosecuting him for the original crime, in the name of 'justice.'

I love the lengths of torture you are willing to go to in order to make a metaphor fit your argument Laughing

The description of the American justice system as some sort of 'raped victim' is pretty laughable.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@CoastalRat,

Quote:

You and others seem to think that sex crimes against children should only be paid for if we can get the person behind bars before they can get away. That's fine.

This is a gross mis-representation of my position. But you seem more interested in expressing your righteous anger than you are accurately discussing what I've said about this, so I'll just let it go.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm fine with prosecuting him for evading sentencing. However, this is different than prosecuting him for the original crime, in the name of 'justice.'

Cycloptichorn

What does that even mean? You're fine with him getting away with what he did?

Here is a reminder...

Quote:

He told Samantha he was taking her to see a friend and they drove to his friend Jack Nicholson's house. "It was exciting," says Samantha. "My girlfriend was supposed to come along as my chaperone but at the last minute Polanski said it would be better if she didn't come. She went home and Mom didn't realise I was on the shoot alone."

At the mansion Polanski got to work. The teenager was impressed by house in its fabulous position overlooking the city, although Nicholson was away skiing.

Samantha was thirsty so Polanski found a bottle of champagne and opened it by the pool.

She remembers: "He took shots of me everywhere. He was taking pictures and topping up my glass constantly." After four or five glasses Samantha was tipsy. Soon he was photo-graphing her nude in a whirlpool bath. Then Polanski stripped off and joined her.

"That was when it turned," says Samantha. "He said 'come here', put his arm around me and touched me on the shoulders.

"I realised I had put myself in a bad situation. I got scared and said I had asthma and couldn't breathe. I said I had to get out of the tub.

"As quick as I could get out of that Jacuzzi I got out. He was older and I didn't think it right we should be hanging out in the tub."

Polanski tried to comfort her. He told her to take half a tablet of the drug Quaalude - a powerful sedative - claiming it would help her asthma, before suggesting she move into the bedroom to sit down.

"We sat on the sofa and that's when it happened," says Samantha. "He started kissing me, I protested but then just submitted. I'd been drinking and was too frightened to push him off - he was a famous guy, he was intimidating. We were alone and it was pitch-black. I was scared. I knew what he was gonna do - and I didn't want him to do it.

"All I could think was let's get through this and I can get home. I just froze up." Polanski had intercourse with Samantha, performed oral sex and sodomised her. He then drove her home saying: "Don't tell your mum or your boyfriend, this is our little secret."

Back at her house, Samantha ran to her room while Polanski charmed her mum. It was not until much later she found out what really happened. Samantha's mother overheard a telephone conversation in which her daughter told her boyfriend about the rape.

But he shouldn't be prosecuted for the original crime?

1 Reply

They don't even have to prosecute him for the original crime. HE PLED GUILTY! All they have to do is get him before a judge for sentencing. (At least, that is my understanding. Anyone can feel free to correct me if I'm missing something here.)

I just don't get it McG. All these people thinking the law should just look the other way. All because she has come to grips with it after all this time. It's no wonder this country has so many problems. Not enough people believe people should face consequences for their actions.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

But he shouldn't be prosecuted for the original crime?

He was prosecuted for the original crime, and entered into a Plea Bargain with the DA and the court:

From wikipedia,

Quote:

Charges and guilty plea

Polanski was initially charged[43] with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[44]

Under the terms of the plea agreement, according to the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay of ninety days to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad. Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days. All parties expected Polanski to get only probation at the subsequent sentencing hearing, but after an alleged conversation with LA Deputy District Attorney David Wells, the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he would send the director to prison and order him deported".[45] In response to the threat of imprisonment, Polanski fled the United States.

From the Slate link:

Quote:

Some articles note that Polanski wants the charges against him dropped because the judge engaged in misconduct. What's that about?
In 1977, Polanski agreed to plead guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse. The presiding judge, Laurence Rittenband, was to decide Polanski's sentence after reviewing a report from the Probation Department and holding a hearing with attorneys for each side. All parties expected Polanski to get only probation.

According to a recent documentary, Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney David Wells, who was not involved in the case, intervened with Rittenband. Wells thought Polanski was being cavalier about the charges against him and should serve time for his misdeed. (Wells showed the judge photographs of Polanski partying in Munich with his arms around two young women who Wells claimed were underage.) Rittenband seemed to be convinced and suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he would send the director to prison and order him deported. At that time, Polanski fled.

While Wells was not himself an attorney of record in the case, he was a lawyer for one of the parties"the state of California. The California Code of Judicial Ethics (PDF) forbids judges to engage in ex parte communications"discussions where only one side is represented.

There is no question that Rittenband violated the ethics code. The question of whether his conversations with Wells are sufficient grounds for dismissal of the charges against Polanski is an open question. There is very little law on the subject to guide the judge who's now presiding over the case. Outright dismissal is an exceedingly rare remedy for ex parte communications, especially when the communications came after the plea agreement was reached. It's far more common for the plea agreement to stand, with a new judge brought in to preside over the sentencing. The original judge could also face sanctions. (Judge Rittenband is deceased, so there's a good chance the unethical contacts will have no impact.)

So:

Polanski commits the crime and cops to it.

He enters into a plea bargain which the DA offers him.

Before the sentencing, the Judge and this attorney for the State of CA get together to discuss the case, and decide that instead of honoring the plea bargain, they are going to string him up for as much as possible - a violation of ethics codes. Both the attorney in question and the judge are also leaking this information to the media at the time, which is likely another ethics violation.

Polanski flees, which is inappropriate - but I can't say I wouldn't have done the same, if I felt like I was going to be railroaded by a crooked judge.

I don't have sympathy for Polanski - the guy is a moral sludge-pile. But the concept that the American Justice system somehow got screwed by Polanski is a joke. There were several issues of impropriety surrounding this prosecution and no one party can be looked at as a pillar of morality in this case.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

They don't even have to prosecute him for the original crime. HE PLED GUILTY! All they have to do is get him before a judge for sentencing. (At least, that is my understanding. Anyone can feel free to correct me if I'm missing something here.)

Woah there chief; he entered into a Plea Bargain. Not the same as unequivocally pleading guilty, and a common practice in American law.

I find it to be really ironic that you get stewed up over this case, but the lies and deceptions and violations of law practiced by those in government - abuses of the law and fragrant violations which lead to deaths and international wars - you don't really seem to give a **** whether people are prosecuted or even investigated for this. You certainly haven't made much noise to that effect.

Perhaps part of the 'problem' in America is that people are only interested in finding 'justice' when their personal interests aren't hurt by doing so.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:

They don't even have to prosecute him for the original crime. HE PLED GUILTY! All they have to do is get him before a judge for sentencing. (At least, that is my understanding. Anyone can feel free to correct me if I'm missing something here.)

Woah there chief; he entered into a Plea Bargain. Not the same as unequivocally pleading guilty, and a common practice in American law.

I find it to be really ironic that you get stewed up over this case, but the lies and deceptions and violations of law practiced by those in government - abuses of the law and fragrant violations which lead to deaths and international wars - you don't really seem to give a **** whether people are prosecuted or even investigated for this. You certainly haven't made much noise to that effect.

Perhaps part of the 'problem' in America is that people are only interested in finding 'justice' when their personal interests aren't hurt by doing so.

Cycloptichorn

It seems like possibly, there might be a HUGE question
of fraud and bad faith committed by government
if the prosecutor offers defendant a deal to plead guilty
and the judge is going around bragging about how he is going
to screw the defendant by imprisoning him forever, regardless of the deal upon the basis of which he pled guilty.

I wonder whether, in fairness, the State of California owes Roman
a good deal of cash for chasing him away, in terror of the corrupt judge,
so that he 's had to be a fugitive all this time.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

When you show me an instance of my not giving a **** about someone who has broken the law you let me know. And if you ever find me arguing against investigating whether or not a crime has taken place, again, let me know. I don't think you can find an instance of that either. But anything to divert attention from my argument on this thread is a plus for you, right?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Last I checked, a judge is not bound to accept a plea agreement. Again, I am no law expert and maybe a lawyer could clarify that.

But nice try. Really good argument. A guy rapes a 13 year old and the state owes him money for threatening to put him behind bars and thus causing him to flee the country.

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

When you show me an instance of my not giving a **** about someone who has broken the law you let me know. And if you ever find me arguing against investigating whether or not a crime has taken place, again, let me know. I don't think you can find an instance of that either. But anything to divert attention from my argument on this thread is a plus for you, right?

I don't need to divert from your argument, because it is an emotionally based one, not a logical one; it doesn't stand on it's own legs, let alone anything I could say about it.

You agree then, that we should investigate crimes - no matter who commits them? I only ask, because I've seen many, many threads calling for this here on A2K, and I just can't seem to recall you coming in with a bunch of righteous indignation, demanding that Justice Be Served. Perhaps I missed those posts of yours.

Bah, I forgot that I was done with this thread, this time, I mean it!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Total bullshit. When he left the country to avoid punishment that was a NEW crime, and the victim is the Justice System in the United States. If all men are indeed created equal, than you can neither buy your way out of crime nor use your considerable means to avoid punishment... and get away with it.

This forgiving victim was still wishing Polanski would return to the country and face the music after 27 years without closure. 27 years she had to deal with the press's bullshit, first because the piece of **** raped her, and it continued because the piece of **** was too cowardly to face judgment.

The precedent you are seeking is basically, All men are created equal, unless one has extraordinary means and successfully waits out the victim’s anger, while hiding from the law. That is truly repugnant, Cyclo. Prosecuting him has everything to do with justice.

I'm fine with prosecuting him for evading sentencing. However, this is different than prosecuting him for the original crime, in the name of 'justice.'

You can't have one without the other.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I love the lengths of torture you are willing to go to in order to make a metaphor fit your argument The description of the American justice system as some sort of 'raped victim' is pretty laughable.

That would be comical, but I intended no such thing. In the second paragraph; I was referring to the rape victim but her name slipped my mind. It was pretty sloppy to slide it in between the first and third. It was a product of haste; sorry for the confusion.

The first and third paragraphs mean simply that flee and allude laws are crimes against the system itself, and that it would be terribly unfair if they were only enforced against people who lack the means to evade the justice system. If you really think about it; you'll probably agree. More money, for more evasion, makes it worse, not better. No just society can operate with one set of laws for the common man, and another for the rich.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

The first and third paragraphs mean simply that flee and allude laws are crimes against the system itself, . . .

Rape, murder, and robbery are also crimes against the system. The idea of a victim deciding not to "press charges" is a myth. Actually, if they decline to testify, they are in contempt of court, is someone wants to make an issue of it.

2 Replies

Why Did Roman Polanski Run Away?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know