Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I doubt it'll happen. Dude's been weaseling out of this for years. I hope they drag him back in irons, I just don't see it happening,

 Ouze wrote:
Guys.

I'm reading this, and In order for this to really become a thread worthy of the OT, at least one of you guys is going to need to defend Roman Polanski.

This is never going to turn into our usual 3 pages of screaming bitterly at each other followed by warnings and a lock unless and until at least one person says that 13 year old was in it for the money and was probably dressed provocatively, and that when you think about it, Roman Polanski is the real victim here. This civil discourse and common consensus is unseemly.

To reiterate, I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed. You can do better, Dakka.

Actually she has claimed herself that he was a victim, treated unfairly by the legal system. Apparently they correspond regularly, and she has asked that he be allowed back to America (testicles and all) with all charges dropped.

As for blaming the victim. It was a bit odd that her parents were told that they couldn't come along to the photo shoot, and they weren't at all suspicious (but they did get loads of money). And since then she has made a career out of it. Wouldn't you know -- she even has a book out "ka-ching".

 Smacks wrote:
Actually she has claimed herself that he was a victim, treated unfairly by the legal system. Apparently they correspond regularly, and she has asked that he be allowed back to America (testicles and all) with all charges dropped.

So, the way to get out of a prison sentence is to have the victim say you shouldn't be punished? Or does this apply only after 30+ years on the lam?

 Breotan wrote:
So, the way to get out of a prison sentence is to have the victim say you shouldn't be punished? Or does this apply only after 30+ years on the lam?

Did I say that he shouldn't be punished? Those are her words, not mine, I am just relaying them to you.

 Smacks wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
So, the way to get out of a prison sentence is to have the victim say you shouldn't be punished? Or does this apply only after 30+ years on the lam?

Did I say that he shouldn't be punished? Those are her words, not mine, I am just relaying them to you.

It is a good example of why the victim isn't the judge in criminal cases nor do they determine whether or not it is a criminal case. Remember he was already tried and by his own admission he is guilty of the crime, he fled sentencing, not prosecution. This probably wouldn't even have come up if he hadn't hired Alan Dershowitz to go to California a few weeks ago and try to get the sentencing dropped, which of course the judge did not do. I may have said then this but it might have been elsewhere but it is a black eye on everyone involved: the USA, Europe, and especially Polanski. Until everyone deals with it the situation is going to linger on and on. If he dies before dealing with it, like an adult not trying to buy their way to freedom, that will be how he is remembered. If the USA doesn't pull back a touch on sentencing they will come across as as entirely vindictive and overzealous. If Europe continues to hide him away it seems like they are ok with child rape and/or incredibly petty toward the USA, neither of which is good. Somehow all the parties need to come together and figure out how to bring this to a conclusion, and Polanski getting a free pass isn't an option. I would have been ok with Europe making him spend some time in jail there if they think the USA will be to harsh, but that hasn't happened either.

I’m amazed that so many famous people have come out and defended his attempts to weasel out of jail over the years, not only that but that studios keep giving him money to make films whilst he continues to evade justice.

Generally I’m quite happy to separate art from the artist and believe that once a person has served their time they should be able move on. If he’d manned up and served his time I’d be ok with him making films again once he was he was released. But whilst he stays on the run? Not a chance.

I hope this succeeds and that his sentence is extended to reflect the fact he went on the run for so long. Given his age he may well not make it out of prison alive again but I think I can live with that.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
So, the way to get out of a prison sentence is to have the victim say you shouldn't be punished? Or does this apply only after 30+ years on the lam?

Did I say that he shouldn't be punished? Those are her words, not mine, I am just relaying them to you.

It is a good example of why the victim isn't the judge in criminal cases nor do they determine whether or not it is a criminal case. Remember he was already tried and by his own admission he is guilty of the crime, he fled sentencing, not prosecution.

We routinely let victims make statements to the judge/jury to give them the opportunity to influence the sentencing of criminals.

 d-usa wrote:
We routinely let victims make statements to the judge/jury to give them the opportunity to influence the sentencing of criminals.

No one is claiming she can't be heard when/if they ever get to actually sentence him. It doesn't change that victims of a crime don't really play a role in choosing to prosecute a criminal case.

 Ahtman wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We routinely let victims make statements to the judge/jury to give them the opportunity to influence the sentencing of criminals.

No one is claiming she can't be heard when/if they ever get to actually sentence him. It doesn't change that victims of a crime don't really play a role in choosing to prosecute a criminal case.

Isn't that the stage he is currently at though, if he ever makes it back? (Not super familiar with the case)

 d-usa wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We routinely let victims make statements to the judge/jury to give them the opportunity to influence the sentencing of criminals.

No one is claiming she can't be heard when/if they ever get to actually sentence him. It doesn't change that victims of a crime don't really play a role in choosing to prosecute a criminal case.

Isn't that the stage he is currently at though, if he ever makes it back? (Not super familiar with the case)

If he ever actually gets sentenced she will have her say but until then they aren't going to rescind a guilty conviction because the victim would like it over with decades later. Her saying something without there actually being a sentencing isn't going to change anything at this point. As stated above it also probably wouldn't be as much an issue but he also keeps trying to get the ruling rescinded as well as talking about it in things like his autobiography.

AFAIK fleeing a Sentencing is its own crime so even if they forgo the rape sentencing he still has to deal with running, of which she has nothing to do with.

Why can't they just sentence him without him being there? Isn't "trial in absentia" a thing if you voluntarily leave the proceedings after a trial has started?

 d-usa wrote:
Why can't they just sentence him without him being there? Isn't "trial in absentia" a thing if you voluntarily leave the proceedings after a trial has started?

"trial in absentia" would mean having a trial without him, but he already had a trial and was found guilty. That could be where the problem lies. If he had fled before the trial Statute of Limitations may have eventually kicked in, but he fled after the trial and before the sentencing which means it never goes away as there is no SoL on sentencing as far as I know. And again, it probably wouldn't come up if he didn't keep trying to have the ruling rescinded. The problem comes, I think, in him wanting to be free of the charges without actually dealing with them. If he was fine staying in parts of Europe that will let him have a free pass then it probably wouldn't come up but he wants to be able to travel freely anywhere, including to the USA, which he can't since he ran. As I said earlier this is most likely in response to the fact that he tried just a few weeks ago to argue that he should be let off the hook.

 Ahtman wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Why can't they just sentence him without him being there? Isn't "trial in absentia" a thing if you voluntarily leave the proceedings after a trial has started?

"trial in absentia" would mean having a trial without him, but he already had a trial and was found guilty. That could be where the problem lies. If he had fled before the trial Statute of Limitations may have eventually kicked in, but he fled after the trial and before the sentencing which means it never goes away as there is no SoL on sentencing as far as I know. And again, it probably wouldn't come up if he didn't keep trying to have the ruling rescinded. The problem comes, I think, in him wanting to be free of the charges without actually dealing with them. If he was fine staying in parts of Europe that will let him have a free pass then it probably wouldn't come up but he wants to be able to travel freely anywhere, including to the USA, which he can't since he ran. As I said earlier this is most likely in response to the fact that he tried just a few weeks ago to argue that he should be let off the hook.

My understanding of the whole "absentia" thing was that as long as the trial started with him here, which it did, it can be finished (including sentencing him) without him actually being present as long as he volutarily decided not to attent the rest of his trial.

Of course this might vary by states as well and might be something our more legal-minded Dakkanauts could tell us more about.

 LuciusAR wrote:
I hope this succeeds and that his sentence is extended to reflect the fact he went on the run for so long. Given his age he may well not make it out of prison alive again but I think I can live with that.

Likewise. Had he not fled this would not even be a consideration

I am by no mean defending this man or condoning sexual assaults on minors. Commit a crime and do the time. The way the world SHOULD work. But it does not.

And a lot of people seem to think that's the case.

Take MJ cases, high ranking official corruption cases ( the ones you don't hear about which are brushed under the mat by the new jersey shore sex tape etc...) e.g. lieber rates scandals... We are talking potential trillions of $$ and a global fallout affecting ordinary people(you know, the people effected by lending rates struggling to pay their loans and mortgages). The people truly responsible will never do "time".

If you guys honestly think we live in a world where "justice" is the be all and end all, you are deluding yourselves.

Yes we all want to believe this is so, and we blindly follow that believe as not to slide into insanity based on the ridiculous disproportionate of wealth and power distribution globally.

The govs are feeding us token cases from time to time proving this is so...

If you have enough money. You will have enough power. The so called "justice" does not apply to you. This is a fact. Its not conspiracy theory. Use your head and think why should a private bank held whole nations and millions upon millions of ordinary men women and children in its grip due to "inflation" and "rates"
People "dissapear" all the time.

But of course we just want blood. We want that one rich famous prick to go down for sexually abusing a kid so we can keep on paying our taxes in the believe justice is for all even the rich...

Well that's gone totally off topic...

 LuciusAR wrote:
I’m amazed that so many famous people have come out and defended his attempts to weasel out of jail over the years, not only that but that studios keep giving him money to make films whilst he continues to evade justice.

Generally I’m quite happy to separate art from the artist and believe that once a person has served their time they should be able move on. If he’d manned up and served his time I’d be ok with him making films again once he was he was released. But whilst he stays on the run? Not a chance.

I hope this succeeds and that his sentence is extended to reflect the fact he went on the run for so long. Given his age he may well not make it out of prison alive again but I think I can live with that.

I wonder what these same people say of Woody Allen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We routinely let victims make statements to the judge/jury to give them the opportunity to influence the sentencing of criminals.

No one is claiming she can't be heard when/if they ever get to actually sentence him. It doesn't change that victims of a crime don't really play a role in choosing to prosecute a criminal case.

Isn't that the stage he is currently at though, if he ever makes it back? (Not super familiar with the case)

If he ever actually gets sentenced she will have her say but until then they aren't going to rescind a guilty conviction because the victim would like it over with decades later. Her saying something without there actually being a sentencing isn't going to change anything at this point. As stated above it also probably wouldn't be as much an issue but he also keeps trying to get the ruling rescinded as well as talking about it in things like his autobiography.

AFAIK fleeing a Sentencing is its own crime so even if they forgo the rape sentencing he still has to deal with running, of which she has nothing to do with.

I wonder how much bearing the judge would give any plea on her part for him, considering the disdain he has shown for the law in this regard and lack of remorse for his crime. I hope if he comes back he doesn't get away from the original sentence by doing a teary song and dance.

At some point you just have to get over it. The kid he raped is now how old? The deed was done in March of 1977 to a 13 year old girl (charged with unlawful sex with a minor). Now if my math is right that's 37 years so the girl is 50 now. According to the Wikipedia article is married with three children. According to BBC News, "Ms Geimer also called for the case to finally be dismissed, saying it "causes harm to me, my husband and children"" According to the Wikipedia article during a television interview on 10 March 2011, Geimer blamed the media, reporters, the court, and the judge for causing "way more damage to [her] and [her] family than anything Roman Polanski has ever done," and stated that the judge was using her and a noted celebrity for his own personal gain from the media exposure.

As a side note, those who cut Israel slack because of the Holocaust might want to extend some slack to Polanski as he was in Poland for WWII and suffered under the Racial Purity Laws, his mother died in Auschwitz and his father spent the war in various concentration camps ultimately surviving and reuniting with Roman after the war. The Wikipedia entry on it all is a worthwhile read. Stuff like that will mess you up good.

Not saying "yea child rape!", rich and famous people should be held to a different standard or even that early childhood horrors excuses adult behaviors. Just saying even the victim says let it go, the guy is clearly messed up and the whole thing is based on a judge that wants his 15 minutes of fame.

So what's the big deal?

I think the big deal is that we cant just drop these cases, because it is not our place to pick and choose which laws to follow. Should we release people from prison if their victims no longer care? We dont know what kind of mental state these crimes leave their victims in, maybe she blames herself for it all. Just to end on a ridiculous note, if I murder someone I should probably hire a medium who will testify that the victim has forgiven me from beyond the grave.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the big deal is that we cant just drop these cases, because it is not our place to pick and choose which laws to follow. Should we release people from prison if their victims no longer care? We dont know what kind of mental state these crimes leave their victims in, maybe she blames herself for it all. Just to end on a ridiculous note, if I murder someone I should probably hire a medium who will testify that the victim has forgiven me from beyond the grave.

Pretty much this. It shouldn't be a game where someone who manages to hide out a number of years gets a free pass. I have a cousin that spent 30 years working social services and dealing with sexually abused children. From the stories he shared with me, I can say that there needs to be an example made.

I totally understand where she is coming from.

But this is also about setting an example to others that you can't just run away and just wait it out, and their victims might feel differently than her.

What's the point of "making an example"? Do you really think some teacher who is getting all hot and bothered by a student is going to stop and say "well, look what they did to Roman Polanski" and not make that move? If someone is screwed up enough to act on such screwed up urges I don't think knowing that there are laws and people may be prosecuted thirty plus years later is going to stop them.

It's like laws making guns illegal. If a guy is planning an armed bank robbery and is ready to kill people do you think knowing that possessing that firearm is a felony is going to stop him?

This is about punishment. Nothing else. That urge we have to see someone suffer for the suffering they caused. Don't try to dress it up as anything else.

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
What's the point of "making an example"? Do you really think some teacher who is getting all hot and bothered by a student is going to stop and say "well, look what they did to Roman Polanski" and not make that move? If someone is screwed up enough to act on such screwed up urges I don't think knowing that there are laws and people may be prosecuted thirty plus years later is going to stop them.

It's like laws making guns illegal. If a guy is planning an armed bank robbery and is ready to kill people do you think knowing that possessing that firearm is a felony is going to stop him?

This is about punishment. Nothing else. That urge we have to see someone suffer for the suffering they caused. Don't try to dress it up as anything else.

Why do we have laws?

My own motivation is I believe in justice, I guess.

Relapse wrote:I wonder what these same people say of Woody Allen.

One difference is that Allen is creepy but also has never been convicted of a crime. Big difference between a person who is problematic and one who actually a criminal.

Ouze wrote:My own motivation is I believe in justice, I guess.

I honestly don't know what you mean as that is so incredibly vague, and a bit self righteous tbh. I think everyone here is generally concerned about justice but there isn't any singular idea of what that means. Does Justice mean facing up to his crime or just letting it go? I personally think some sort of compromise between all parties is going to be the only way this is resolved but I think everyone involved doesn't seem to want that.

I meant facing up to his crime.

Relapse wrote:
Why do we have laws?

That's a deep philosophical question. I think it has been proven our system of incarceration does not actually fix wrongdoers but instead improves their average skill level. In a sense the prison system is more like a university for criminals.

The idea of a system of fines for minor offenses is more like a tax on dangerous behavior. If it worked then my wife wouldn't have had dozens of parking tickets and a handful of speeding tickets.

Certainly the average person doesn't commit serious crimes but is that out of a fear of legal recriminations or simply because we have an innate sense of right and wrong? It has been shown that children know what is "fair" without having been taught and studies of the brain show that there are regions of the brain that seem to be linked to our sense of fairness. So those who commit crimes against thier fellow citizens clearly have either an underdeveloped sense of fairness or a flaw in their logic regarding what is "fair". Most criminals who steal justify their actions by saying their victims have too much or in some way offended them and they are doing "what's fair". They see themselves as victims of "the system" and their actions as justice. Those who commit sexual crimes against minors have been shown to have developed a sexual preference for the young and can no more stop finding them attractive than a normal person could stop finding the target of their affections to be attractive. You could threaten them with the death penalty and they wouldn't be able to change without a lot of help. There are medications that can suppress the sex drive to the point where they are no longer dangerous but those are costly and not many recently released felons have jobs with good health insurance.

The system of justice in the western world is hundreds of years old and like most of the ideas from that time are based on emotion rather than logic. In a sense all we do is warehouse broken people and release them into the world without any real help. We in fact make their lives worse as a felony conviction follows them for the rest of their lives and prevents them from getting a good job. The only path they see is to continue their criminal activities but in their twisted view of the world they are the victims seeking justice against the system.

Add to this the politics of justice, where we elect a District Attorney who must seek reelection and to look more strict will pursue cases more vindictively during election years. If you ever want to murder your spouse be certain to do so in an off election year because it has been shown DAs are more likely to seek death penalties during an election year. They are so diligent in their duties during elections that many an innocent man goes to death row as a recent review of the Illinois justice system has shown. A disturbingly large percentage of inmates on death row were actually innocent. How can that be? Combine the DA wanting convictions, CSI labs being lazy and juries that watch too many cop shows and simply assume the police wouldn't arrest someone if they weren't guilty.

So to answer your question, we have laws because we don't have any better way of dealing with the people in our society who are broken. Personally I think we need to solve the deeper problems in society. In the case of violent offenders and property crimes a link between poverty and criminal activities has been not only demonstrated but is unquestioned. The US has higher poverty rates per capita which has far more to do with violent crime than the availability of firearms. As for sexual offenders those are problems that develop in childhood, typically in bad relationships with parents or other authority figures of the opposite sex. Such problems could be solved by having easy access to counseling and psychotherapy for children who exhibit early signs of sexual dysfunction. But that costs money and in the case of the US we have brown people setting on top of resources we want and it is very costly to blow them to bits. We cant afford to fix people who didn't have the good fortune to be born into money.

In the case of Mr. Polanski, his dysfunction is rooted in some of the most seriously screwed up stuff in the 20th century. His problems won't be solved by incarceration, therapy or drugs. His victim has moved on and while she may have her own share of dysfunctions she has made a life for herself and functions without harming others. She doesn't want revenge and her parents are no longer in charge of her life. She is an adult and for better or worse has control of her own life now. Locking him up won't return her innocence or prevent any future criminal activity on US soil on his part. So why waste the money on extradition, extra security, the courts time, a jail cell for an 80 year old man and accepting the medical expenses for someone that old. I think that money could be better spent on just about anything else.

And before you get any ideas that I'm some liberal pantywaist that wants to coddle criminals I'm a supporter of the right to carry a gun for self defense and think the death penalty is a fine idea as long as it's the victim administering the punishment at the time the crime is committed. I figure Mr. Polanski evaded the bullet that his victim's parents held for him long enough. Time to let it go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I meant facing up to his crime.

The punishment would have included deportation. He did that to himself. At the time the judge would have allowed him house arrest and the Swiss did that to him already. Does a guy in a black dress with a wooden mallet make it any different?

Me Like Burnaz wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Why do we have laws?

That's a deep philosophical question. I think it has been proven our system of incarceration does not actually fix wrongdoers but instead improves their average skill level. In a sense the prison system is more like a university for criminals.

Citation needed.

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
The idea of a system of fines for minor offenses is more like a tax on dangerous behavior. If it worked then my wife wouldn't have had dozens of parking tickets and a handful of speeding tickets.

Or the system can work without reducing crime by 100%. It doesn't have to stop everything to be effective.

Me Like Burnaz wrote:


Certainly the average person doesn't commit serious crimes but is that out of a fear of legal recriminations or simply because we have an innate sense of right and wrong? It has been shown that children know what is "fair" without having been taught and studies of the brain show that there are regions of the brain that seem to be linked to our sense of fairness.

Citation needed.

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
Most criminals who steal justify their actions by saying their victims have too much or in some way offended them and they are doing "what's fair". They see themselves as victims of "the system" and their actions as justice.

Citation needed.

Me Like Burnaz wrote:

The system of justice in the western world is hundreds of years old and like most of the ideas from that time are based on emotion rather than logic. In a sense all we do is warehouse broken people and release them into the world without any real help. We in fact make their lives worse as a felony conviction follows them for the rest of their lives and prevents them from getting a good job. The only path they see is to continue their criminal activities but in their twisted view of the world they are the victims seeking justice against the system.

Citation needed. Also, the US is not synonymous with "the western world".

Me Like Burnaz wrote:

Add to this the politics of justice, where we elect a District Attorney who must seek reelection and to look more strict will pursue cases more vindictively during election years. If you ever want to murder your spouse be certain to do so in an off election year because it has been shown DAs are more likely to seek death penalties during an election year. They are so diligent in their duties during elections that many an innocent man goes to death row as a recent review of the Illinois justice system has shown. A disturbingly large percentage of inmates on death row were actually innocent. How can that be? Combine the DA wanting convictions, CSI labs being lazy and juries that watch too many cop shows and simply assume the police wouldn't arrest someone if they weren't guilty.

Agreed, there's issues with elected judges.

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
In the case of violent offenders and property crimes a link between poverty and criminal activities has been not only demonstrated but is unquestioned.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Sorry if I come across as an donkey-cave, but you're making a lot of unsubstantiated claims.

Welcome to Dakka Dakka.

 Jihadin wrote:
Tracking now. SOFA can be revised or left as is. What's in the Agreement is in the Agreement. That Marine killing the Lady Boy in the Phillapines(sp) was turned over to the local LEO and the Fleet moved on. He might have to give an example of a US Service Member escaping prosecution. I've a few instances he might be thinking of but I like to see the example first

I cannot even recall the number of times I saw (in bulletin form) a US servicemember or dependent getting popped for a DUI in Germany, and being so royally fethed on both sides of the fence.... Yeah, there's quite a few instance, and a goodly number of laws that, if you break them in country, you pay the local price for the crime, and THEN you get hit with the US side after you're done with that.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Tracking now. SOFA can be revised or left as is. What's in the Agreement is in the Agreement. That Marine killing the Lady Boy in the Phillapines(sp) was turned over to the local LEO and the Fleet moved on. He might have to give an example of a US Service Member escaping prosecution. I've a few instances he might be thinking of but I like to see the example first

I cannot even recall the number of times I saw (in bulletin form) a US servicemember or dependent getting popped for a DUI in Germany, and being so royally fethed on both sides of the fence.... Yeah, there's quite a few instance, and a goodly number of laws that, if you break them in country, you pay the local price for the crime, and THEN you get hit with the US side after you're done with that.

German's screwed a case for us once. An old coworker of mine got popped for schtucking his troops, at work, and at the same time the German police raided his house, nailed him for kiddy porn (some of it his own doing...). Except the way they raided his home made all of that evidence inadmissible in our courts. He only ended up with a few years in prison when he could have had a decade plus.