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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Because the label of rapist requires a criminal conviction.

No it doesn't. His public, willing, admission to committing an act of rape is sufficient to label him a rapist beyond any dispute. Polanski is a rapist, period.

The law disagrees with you. You don't get to house rule this, it's in the RAW.

 Peregrine wrote:

The context doesn't save your case at all. You presented a hypothetical scenario where one would take a plea bargain, with a defendant who is innocent of the crime.

Perhaps you should actually take the tip and include the context then, so you will know how wrong you are. the hypothetical scenario was explained in detail to make guilt or innocence ambiguous to show how the plea bargaining system fails and why taking a plea admission out of its context leads to miscarriage of justice.

 Peregrine wrote:

.....It is dishonest to bring such an argument into this discussion,......

Here is the relevant section of the hypothetical scenario:

During the search he finds drugs, well over the volume to be a trafficking felony rather than misdemeanour possession. We will leave unanswered whether the drugs are yours. Perhaps you are a narcotics trafficker and this is your major new income stream, maybe they were in the car when you bought it at auction. Maybe a faithless passenger left them there so you were an unwitting mule of 'the product' on its journey across America.

You see, the scenario covers both angles and the dangers of mishandling plea bargains were understndable both ways.

 Peregrine wrote:

where the defendant is known beyond any possible dispute to be guilty of the crime.

Really? How would you say this. There was no confession of any kind, no memoires, Polanski contested the allegations and it could well have been just a he-said she-said and a bungled prosecution.
Guilty until proven guilty is not justice, even alleged child molesters get that level of protection.
Where do you think you are, the Soviet Union?

What you are saying is literal prejudice. Polanski is never prior to a conviction in a position where it is legally acceptable to claim he is guilty beyond dispute. That is what trials are for, the prosecution and judge bungled this in pre-trial, and that plus other factors makes extradition near impossible.

 Peregrine wrote:

Put into the context of your other apologetics for a known child rapist it is hard to avoid getting the impression that you are presenting the idea that Polanski is innocent and only took the plea bargain out of fear of a much harsher sentence.

My apologetics to a defendant who suffered a miscarriage of justice do not require any investigation into the offence with which he was charged. Legal rights are not earned on merit, they are inalienable and inherent. Some people tend to forget that when they get salty over the allegations with which an accused are charged. Sounder minds do not.


Polanski has jumped bail and lost that money, that is an international criminal record right, but that is all there is legally on him unless he returns to America.


I have one portion of inherent sympathy for Polanski over the Sharon Tate murder, this may or may not be directly relevant, deep traumas like this have been mitigating circumstances in sentencing if not actual guilt.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Wall of texts =/= being right.

Short wrong answers are still wrong. If you dislike 'walls of text', i.e a paragraph or two, heaven help you when you discover books!!
Also the paragraphs were right and were not too long to get across a legal point. They were clearly written so I am not responsible for your inability to grasp the contents

 d-usa wrote:

Polanski has been convicted because he accepted he plea bargain, that phase is over and he is pending sentencing.

Enjoy your delusions.

https://www.nytimes.com/1977/08/09/archives/polanski-guilty-plea-accepted-in-sex-case-district-attorney-says.html

Thank you for the link. Here it is from the top:

SANTA MONICA, Calif., Aug. 8—Roman Polanski, the film director, pleaded guilty today in Superior Court here to one felony count of “unlawful sexual intercourse” with a 13‐year‐old girl.
The plea, entered as a result of plea bargaining, could result in Mr. Polanski's being deported or sentenced to a jail term......

Yep still plea bargaining, not an unconditional guilty plea. Newspaper headlines not being factually accurate. Who would have thought it eh.

Later after this article was written the plea agreement was reneged upon, so the plea dissolves without issue.

 Orlanth wrote:
The law disagrees with you. You don't get to house rule this, it's in the RAW.

A rapist is a person who has committed a rape. Conviction in court is not necessary for this status. Polanski is a rapist, period.

Perhaps you should actually take the tip and include the context then, so you will know how wrong you are. the hypothetical scenario was explained in detail to make guilt or innocence ambiguous to show how the plea bargaining system fails and why taking a plea admission out of its context leads to miscarriage of justice.

Now you're adding more dishonestly. Your exact words:

You didn't commit either crime but you have no alibi, there is a dodgy witness and an angry jury will likely find against you.

You explicitly state that the defendant is innocent in this scenario. Nothing is at all ambiguous.

Here is the relevant section of the hypothetical scenario:

Nope. That was the scenario in your other post, entirely separate from the one I quoted.

Really? How would you say this. There was no confession of any kind, no memoires, Polanski contested the allegations and it could well have been just a he-said she-said and a bungled prosecution.

Polanski admitted in his autobiography that he raped her. There is no dispute at all over his guilt.

My apologetics to a defendant who suffered a miscarriage of justice do not require any investigation into the offence with which he was charged. Legal rights are not earned on merit, they are inalienable and inherent. Some people tend to forget that when they get salty over the allegations with which an accused are charged. Sounder minds do not.

Oh really? If it's purely about the judicial system following the rules, rather than apologetics for a confessed child rapist, then why did you attempt to bring in sympathy for Polanski regarding his murdered wife? That has nothing to do with whether or not the judicial system operated according to its proper rules.

I have one portion of inherent sympathy for Polanski over the Sharon Tate murder, this may or may not be directly relevant, deep traumas like this have been mitigating circumstances in sentencing if not actual guilt.

JFC you have got to be kidding. Losing a spouse, no matter how bad the circumstances are, does not in any way mitigate guilt over raping a child completely unrelated to the murder. Polanski should not be given one bit of sympathy in sentencing.

The law does not require that a prosecutor charge anyone with any crime at any point in time.

If you commit a murder, the prosecutor can charge you for murder. He can also look at the evidence and situation he has and charge you for manslaughter instead. He can also look at everything and decide to charge you for assault. He can also look at everything and decide that no jury will ever convict you of anything and not charge you at all. That is part of the discretion we have always given to prosecutors. They can charge you for the maximum or minimum crime that could cover what you did.

That same basic idea extends to the court room. A defendant can plead guilty to every crime, a defendant can plead not-guilty to every crime, or a defendant can plead guilty to some crimes with the prosecutor agreeing not to prosecute the remaining crimes. That is all a plea bargain is: "I agree to a conviction for these things, if you don't put these other things to a trial".

Your failure to understand what a plea bargain actually is doesn't change the legal basis of what a guilty plea means.

But hey, maybe you can write to California, the US justice system, France, Switzerland, Poland, and Interpol and let them know Polanski was never actually convicted of anything and it's just a big misunderstanding. That all the people filing for sentencing in absentia are simply mistaken because how could they sentence without him ever being convicted.

You either managed to crack a decade old widely publicized international legal case wide open, or you are simply wrong.

Continue making arguments about the ethical implications of plea bargains and how people often fall victims to a power imbalance and lack of resources on their side. That's where your strength is in this argument, and that's where many people will agree with you. Hell, I will agree with you. There is a ton of people sitting in jail who agreed to a lower plea because they didn't want to risk a trial in a system that is often biased against them even though they may not have committed the crime they were charged with. I don't have a problem with the concept of plea bargaining, it's a useful tool for prosecutors and defendants alike. But it's also a tool that is often used inappropriately. I, and probably most, will agree with you there. Good job pointing out a frequent system of injustice.

But none of that changes the legal basis that a guilty plea in court is a guilty plea in court is a guilty plea in court. There is no legal difference between a guilty plea before or after bargaining.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

Later after this article was written the plea agreement was reneged upon, so the plea dissolves without issue.

The plea agreement was completed and finalized the moment he said "guilty" and the prosecutor drops the remaining charges. The prosecution never reneged upon the plea agreement and it remains in full force, or else they would have refiled all the original charges long ago. But they haven't, because he has already been convicted of one crime in exchange for dropping the others, and double jeopardy is a thing.

The only thing pending is sentencing by a judge, and the judge almost always has discretion about what sentence (s)he would like to impose. It doesn't matter if you go through a trial, plead guilty up front, or plead guilty during the plea bargaining process. The legislature usually writes a range of sentences they want imposed for a crime, the prosecutor makes a recommendation for what sentence they would like to see handed down, the defense makes a case for why a lesser sentence should be imposed, and then the judge decides on the actual sentence. That's always been the case, and our justice system has never been setup for a prosecutor to decide on the actual sentence.

Polanski, the prosecution, and/or both of them were stupid for assuming they knew what sentence the judge would impose, but that doesn't mean the plea bargain is invalid. The judge was never a party to the plea agreement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For what it’s worth:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-basics-plea-bargain.html

A plea bargain is an agreement between a defendant and a prosecutor, in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest (nolo contendere) in exchange for an agreement by the prosecutor to drop one or more charges, reduce a charge to a less serious offense, or recommend to the judge a specific sentence acceptable to the defense.

A guilty or no contest plea entered as a judge-approved plea bargain results in a criminal conviction; the defendant’s guilt is established just as it would be after a trial. The conviction will show up on the defendant’s criminal record (rap sheet). And, the defendant loses any rights or privileges, such as the right to vote, that the defendant would lose if convicted after trial.

 Peregrine wrote:

A rapist is a person who has committed a rape. Conviction in court is not necessary for this status. Polanski is a rapist, period.

The purpose of a trial is to determine the applicability of labels of this nature as well as to determine restitution or punishment as required under law. Basic legal rights assume that without a formal just conviction there is no valid label.
Rape is a crime, no conviction, no crime.
It is that simple, its the basic inalienable difference between a civilised society and a rogue state.

 Peregrine wrote:

Now you're adding more dishonestly. Your exact words:

You didn't commit either crime but you have no alibi, there is a dodgy witness and an angry jury will likely find against you.

I see where the confusion comes from. You needed to add more context

You are arrested charged and offered a plea bargain.
Admit to child rape for a very short plea bargained sentence, with early parole at half that time.
Go to court under the full charge of say inappropriate conduct with a minor which will end up with a sentence three times as long if convicted, and likely no early parole.
You didn't commit either crime but you have no alibi, there is a dodgy witness and an angry jury will likely find against you.
What do you do?

The full comment is relevant as it shows a scenario how a plea bargain can be taken from a point of view of innocence, and consequently we cannot assume that in every case a plea bargain is taken from a point of view of guilt. As people are innocent until proven guilty (outside of Peregrineland) this is a valid context for any case.
The full hypothetical scenario as on a different post, and had a different purpose, to establish in cases of both likely guilt and likely innocence that the mishandling of a plea bargain results in a a miscarriage of justice.

Please keep the context in to avoid misunderstanding, both ways.

 Peregrine wrote:

Really? How would you say this. There was no confession of any kind, no memoires, Polanski contested the allegations and it could well have been just a he-said she-said and a bungled prosecution.

Polanski admitted in his autobiography that he raped her. There is no dispute at all over his guilt.

Thought you would make a comment like this.
How does that effect a case in 1977. Does justice in Peregrineland require time travel?

 Peregrine wrote:

Oh really? If it's purely about the judicial system following the rules, rather than apologetics for a confessed child rapist, then why did you attempt to bring in sympathy for Polanski regarding his murdered wife? That has nothing to do with whether or not the judicial system operated according to its proper rules.

Actually these are referred to a mitigating circumstances. They do not always influence guilt or innocence but they do influence culpability.

Here is an unrelated example of consideration of circumstances during sentencing.


Consideration of circumstances can also be permitted by a jury in conviction, though this is rarer.

 Peregrine wrote:

I have one portion of inherent sympathy for Polanski over the Sharon Tate murder, this may or may not be directly relevant, deep traumas like this have been mitigating circumstances in sentencing if not actual guilt.

JFC you have got to be kidding. Losing a spouse, no matter how bad the circumstances are, does not in any way mitigate guilt over raping a child completely unrelated to the murder. Polanski should not be given one bit of sympathy in sentencing.

I am not kidding or blaspheming. I just understand that deep trauma of this kind can feth people up. An example being some trajick cases of Kosovo veterans who witnesses Serbian child rape camps and were corrupted by the memories over time. Some later developed a taste for child porn.....

And yes circumstances like this can effect trial. They have before. Best clearest example being the Ludi Magni of course, the corruption was well documented by contemporary Roman journalists

Let us start with an extreme case, a cabal of about the Jewish Holocaust survivors who were set free after they were caught trying to poison the water supply of four German cities. The plot if successful would have killed vast numbers of Germans unrelated to Holocaust crimes, but the 'mitigating circumstances' gave them a free pass for attempted mass murder.

An unpopular example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Couch " target="_new" rel="nofollow">affluenza teen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Couch While not a good example it shows the power of mitigating circumstances when sargued by a good lawyer. There are far more deserving cases but they don't stick out in the mind like the bad ones do..

It is very likely that mitigating circumstances related to Sharon Tate's murder resulted in the initial plea bargain Polanski received, we simply do not know because plea bargains are confidential. It is not an unreasonable inference regarding the extraordinary plea bargain deal.

 d-usa wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Later after this article was written the plea agreement was reneged upon, so the plea dissolves without issue.

The plea agreement was completed and finalized the moment he said "guilty" and the prosecutor drops the remaining charges.

Nope it is still conditional, and the defendant can drop it if they like. We see this is true because even a guilty plea it can be withdrawn during trial. Though withdrawal of a guilty plea is more difficult as it is unconditional.

 d-usa wrote:

The plea agreement was completed and finalized the moment he said "guilty" and the prosecutor drops the remaining charges. The prosecution never reneged upon the plea agreement and it remains in full force, or else they would have refiled all the original charges long ago. But they haven't, because he has already been convicted of one crime in exchange for dropping the others, and double jeopardy is a thing.

It was the judge two reneged on the plea bargain. Also you missed out how a plea agreement can include a sentencing limit (which is what the judge reneged upon, also it is still NOT a conviction, its is a conditional plea. Even a regular guilty plea is not a conviction until after conviction by the jury or referal to a sentencing hearing by mutual agreement. The Polanski case never got that far.

 d-usa wrote:

The only thing pending is sentencing by a judge, and the judge almost always has discretion about what sentence (s)he would like to impose. It doesn't matter if you go through a trial, plead guilty up front, or plead guilty during the plea bargaining process. The legislature usually writes a range of sentences they want imposed for a crime, the prosecutor makes a recommendation for what sentence they would like to see handed down, the defense makes a case for why a lesser sentence should be imposed, and then the judge decides on the actual sentence. That's always been the case, and our justice system has never been setup for a prosecutor to decide on the actual sentence.

However a plea agreement can also tie the hands of the judge to a limit on sentencing.

 d-usa wrote:

Polanski, the prosecution, and/or both of them were stupid for assuming they knew what sentence the judge would impose, but that doesn't mean the plea bargain is invalid. The judge was never a party to the plea agreement.

Polanski's legal team arranged generous terms including limits on sentencing. If the prosecutors agree the judges hands are tied. The judge can attempt to overrule but this violates the plea agreement and leaves its validity in question. At that point Polanski fled and due to he miscarriage of justice, plus other factors he is effectively unextraditable. plea bargaining is considered a breach of justice in most western countries, and their legal systems will have an easy time blocking extraditions of this kind as they violate rights in third party countries, where Polanski is now living.

AFAIK the Polanski case resulted in a review on handling of plea agreements, it did lasting damage to the US judicial system.
Plea bargaining is still a thing, but the excesses usually go the other way

 d-usa wrote:

A plea bargain is an agreement between a defendant and a prosecutor, in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest (nolo contendere) in exchange for an agreement by the prosecutor to drop one or more charges, reduce a charge to a less serious offense, or recommend to the judge a specific sentence acceptable to the defense.

A guilty or no contest plea entered as a judge-approved plea bargain results in a criminal conviction; the defendant’s guilt is established just as it would be after a trial. The conviction will show up on the defendant’s criminal record (rap sheet). And, the defendant loses any rights or privileges, such as the right to vote, that the defendant would lose if convicted after trial.

Simplified practical common definitions, there is more going on under the hood. Notice the judge approved-plea bargain, that is to say the conviction occurs as a consequence of the sentencing hearing post plea bargain, as that is when the judge has direct input, it is NOT inherent to the plea itself but the conclusion of the process.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

A rapist is a person who has committed a rape. Conviction in court is not necessary for this status. Polanski is a rapist, period.

The purpose of a trial is to determine the applicability of labels of this nature as well as to determine restitution or punishment as required under law. Basic legal rights assume that without a formal just conviction there is no valid label.
Rape is a crime, no conviction, no crime.
It is that simple, its the basic inalienable difference between a civilised society and a rogue state.

This makes absolutely zero sense. What if the guy who did it dies before a trial? So he can't be a rapist or murderer because he never went to trial even though we all know he did it?

 Orlanth wrote:

snip

I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it. So I'm just gonna go ahead and skip the next few pages of back and forth before the lock.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Really? How would you say this. There was no confession of any kind, no memoires, Polanski contested the allegations and it could well have been just a he-said she-said and a bungled prosecution.

Polanski admitted in his autobiography that he raped her. There is no dispute at all over his guilt.

Thought you would make a comment like this.
How does that effect a case in 1977. Does justice in Peregrineland require time travel?

How does justice affect Polanski calling himself a rapist in his memoires, he fully admits to having sex with a 13 year old.

 d-usa wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

snip

I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it. So I'm just gonna go ahead and skip the next few pages of back and forth before the lock.

Make a point or stop trolling.

What you explained, and I do understand it is that you are riled because your preconceptions and preferred outlook on life is not matched by the legal system.
Here is some helpful advice: Get over it.
Human justice is procedural and has its rigid rules, this is necessary for the best protection the law can give to society. But this also means you cant guarantee you will get what you think is right. Humans in the system can feth up a prosecution and a guilty man can walk, and innocents can end up on death row.

Your problem, and its one you haven't really grasped is that the facts of legal procedure, the facts of what you can do to someone legally and when and when they can be labelled as a criminal are tied up with the mechanics of law. And the worst thing we can do is to remove the wheels because of public anger at individual results one doesn't like and in doing so potentially break the system or leave the protections malleable to later corruption.

Now most legal systems do allow a figurehead to reach in and suspend the system, but in nearly all cases the intervention is to apply clemency, the opposite is the hallmark of a dictatorship. So an innocent on death row can receive a pardon, though that is sadly unlikely in practice, but the opposite is not true.

 Orlanth wrote:

Let us start with an extreme case, a cabal of about the Jewish Holocaust survivors who were set free after they were caught trying to poison the water supply of four German cities. The plot if successful would have killed vast numbers of Germans unrelated to Holocaust crimes, but the 'mitigating circumstances' gave them a free pass for attempted mass murder.

Wait what, do you have a source for this?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

A rapist is a person who has committed a rape. Conviction in court is not necessary for this status. Polanski is a rapist, period.

The purpose of a trial is to determine the applicability of labels of this nature as well as to determine restitution or punishment as required under law. Basic legal rights assume that without a formal just conviction there is no valid label.
Rape is a crime, no conviction, no crime.
It is that simple, its the basic inalienable difference between a civilised society and a rogue state.

This makes absolutely zero sense. What if the guy who did it dies before a trial? So he can't be a rapist or murderer because he never went to trial even though we all know he did it?

Yes. This has long been refered to as cheating justice. Sorry, it happens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Let us start with an extreme case, a cabal of about the Jewish Holocaust survivors who were set free after they were caught trying to poison the water supply of four German cities. The plot if successful would have killed vast numbers of Germans unrelated to Holocaust crimes, but the 'mitigating circumstances' gave them a free pass for attempted mass murder.

Wait what, do you have a source for this?

plenty, but this is the easiest:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/holocaust-the-revenge-plot

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

A rapist is a person who has committed a rape. Conviction in court is not necessary for this status. Polanski is a rapist, period.

The purpose of a trial is to determine the applicability of labels of this nature as well as to determine restitution or punishment as required under law. Basic legal rights assume that without a formal just conviction there is no valid label.
Rape is a crime, no conviction, no crime.
It is that simple, its the basic inalienable difference between a civilised society and a rogue state.

This makes absolutely zero sense. What if the guy who did it dies before a trial? So he can't be a rapist or murderer because he never went to trial even though we all know he did it?

Yes. This has long been refered to as cheating justice. Sorry, it happens.

So taking that logic to its extreme we're wrong to label people like Stalin and Hitler mass murderers?

 Orlanth wrote:
[q

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Let us start with an extreme case, a cabal of about the Jewish Holocaust survivors who were set free after they were caught trying to poison the water supply of four German cities. The plot if successful would have killed vast numbers of Germans unrelated to Holocaust crimes, but the 'mitigating circumstances' gave them a free pass for attempted mass murder.

Wait what, do you have a source for this?

plenty, but this is the easiest:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/holocaust-the-revenge-plot

Thanks, so looking into the case it wasn't mitigating circumstances, it was primarily the statute of limitations and the fact that a proper investigation could not be mounted. We're talking about a case they we're trying to look into 55 years later. They weren't given a free pass, there was an preliminary investigation to see if a case had merit. The important figures were all dead by 2000.

And nobody was set free at the time either, they weren't caught, the ringleader got arrested on travelling with forged documents in an entirely different country, the authorities never found the poison.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

A rapist is a person who has committed a rape. Conviction in court is not necessary for this status. Polanski is a rapist, period.

The purpose of a trial is to determine the applicability of labels of this nature as well as to determine restitution or punishment as required under law. Basic legal rights assume that without a formal just conviction there is no valid label.
Rape is a crime, no conviction, no crime.
It is that simple, its the basic inalienable difference between a civilised society and a rogue state.

This makes absolutely zero sense. What if the guy who did it dies before a trial? So he can't be a rapist or murderer because he never went to trial even though we all know he did it?

Yes. This has long been referred to as cheating justice. Sorry, it happens.

So taking that logic to its extreme we're wrong to label people like Stalin and Hitler mass murderers?

Apples and oranges.
No, that was political, not legal.
The difference was explained in the Skripal thread. One can accuse Russia of poisoning without proof in a court of law because it was a political accusation. An individual is at the mercy of the state, a foreign power is not, so the same protections do not apply.
So burden of proof is required to convict a serial killer in your native country by its law enforcement, but not to condemn Hitler, or Stalin, or Saddam Hussein, or Assad.

Still trials are recommended, and not all those sent to Nuremberg were convicted, some were aquitted. However again there is a distinction, in 1946 the Nazis were under domestic justice of the occupying powers, so trials were held. But the same powers were killing Nazis without trial a year earlier.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Thanks, so looking into the case it wasn't mitigating circumstances, it was primarily the statute of limitations and the fact that a proper investigation could not be mounted. We're talking about a case they we're trying to look into 55 years later. They weren't given a free pass, there was an preliminary investigation to see if a case had merit. The important figures were all dead by 2000.

Some were arrested at the time, and the plot was uncovered. There was a lot of looking the other way
Also there is no statute of limitations for attempted mass murder, its an excuse. This is why they are still hunting Nazis.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

A rapist is a person who has committed a rape. Conviction in court is not necessary for this status. Polanski is a rapist, period.

The purpose of a trial is to determine the applicability of labels of this nature as well as to determine restitution or punishment as required under law. Basic legal rights assume that without a formal just conviction there is no valid label.
Rape is a crime, no conviction, no crime.
It is that simple, its the basic inalienable difference between a civilised society and a rogue state.

This makes absolutely zero sense. What if the guy who did it dies before a trial? So he can't be a rapist or murderer because he never went to trial even though we all know he did it?

Yes. This has long been referred to as cheating justice. Sorry, it happens.

So taking that logic to its extreme we're wrong to label people like Stalin and Hitler mass murderers?

Apples and oranges.
No, that was political, not legal.
The difference was explained in the Skripal thread. One can accuse Russia of poisoning without proof in a court of law because it was a political accusation. An individual is at the mercy of the state, a foreign power is not, so the same protections do not apply.
So burden of proof is required to convict a serial killer in your native country by its law enforcement, but not to condemn Hitler, or Stalin, or Saddam Hussein, or Assad.

Still trials are recommended, and not all those sent to Nuremberg were convicted, some were aquitted. However again there is a distinction, in 1946 the Nazis were under domestic justice of the occupying powers, so trials were held. But the same powers were killing Nazis without trial a year earlier.

Ok, I'm accusing Polanski of being a rapist, but don't worry, its political as he isn't from my native country.
You make a distinction between condemn and convict, so you can condemn Polanski for being a rapist but not convict him, so at the end of the day he would still be labelled a rapist.

Hitler and Stalin were still individuals, power could have been taken away from them. Its moving goalposts to say that they are foreign powers, because they aren't foreign in their own countries. You can put Assad on trial at the ICC. What about all those mass murdering Soviets or Nazis that were never convicted after the fact or died during the wars, are they also mislabelled?

Its a cute to say trials were held, but the vast majority escaped justice as evidenced by the fact that we have resorted to rounding up 90 year old men for crimes they should have been put on trial for 70 years ago. The whole logic of "you can only label people who were convicted" just falls apart at the first bit of critique.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Thanks, so looking into the case it wasn't mitigating circumstances, it was primarily the statute of limitations and the fact that a proper investigation could not be mounted. We're talking about a case they we're trying to look into 55 years later. They weren't given a free pass, there was an preliminary investigation to see if a case had merit. The important figures were all dead by 2000.

Some were arrested at the time, and the plot was uncovered. There was a lot of looking the other way
Also there is no statute of limitations for attempted mass murder, its an excuse. This is why they are still hunting Nazis.

No they weren't. They fled to Israel after a botched attempt. Nobody was arrested at the time over it. Actually they are hunting Nazis for actual involvement in mass murder. Do you have any proof that the two individuals investigated in 2000 were actually involved in the plot, because as I said, the main people involved were already dead . For someone so stringent on the law and "labelling", you sure throw the label of mass murder around easily in this context...

Is there a 6th chaos god of Obstinate Pedantry? Am I in his unholy presence?

 Orlanth wrote:
Make a point or stop trolling.

OK:

 Orlanth wrote:

Nope it is still conditional, and the defendant can drop it if they like.

Wrong. Once it's entered and accepted, it's done and done. You can appeal and whatnot, but the conviction stands.

It was the judge two reneged on the plea bargain.

Wrong. A judge cannot renege on a plea bargain, because a judge is not a party to a plea bargain.

Also you missed out how a plea agreement can include a sentencing limit

Depends. A plea agreement can include a recommendation for sentencing to the judge or it can tie the hands of the judge. To the best of my knowledge, Polanski's deal had the former.

which is what the judge reneged upon,

Wrong. The judge did not renege on the plea agreement, because the judge had nothing to do with the plea agreement and has no requirement to follow the sentencing recommendation of the prosecution in this case.

also it is still NOT a conviction, its is a conditional plea.

Wrong. It's a conviction once it's entered by both parties and accepted by a judge.

Even a regular guilty plea is not a conviction until after conviction by the jury

'

Wrong. If you plead guilty, there won't be a jury trial and you are convicted by your own admission of guilt.

or referal to a sentencing hearing by mutual agreement.

Wrong. Conviction and sentencing are two separate phases of the process.

The Polanski case never got that far.

Wrong. He got through the conviction process. He is still pending the sentencing process.

However a plea agreement can also tie the hands of the judge to a limit on sentencing.

Wrong in this case. Sentencing is always up to the judge who can follow the law as written in any way he wants.

Polanski's legal team arranged generous terms including limits on sentencing. If the prosecutors agree the judges hands are tied.

Wrong in this case. See above.

The judge can attempt to overrule but this violates the plea agreement and leaves its validity in question.

Wrong. The judge is free to follow the recommendation by the prosecutor, and he is also free to completely ignore it. Which is probably the reason why nobody actually involved in the legal case is actually arguing that the plea agreement is null and void.

Notice the judge approved-plea bargain, that is to say the conviction occurs as a consequence of the sentencing hearing post plea bargain, as that is when the judge has direct input, it is NOT inherent to the plea itself but the conclusion of the process.

Wrong. Conviction and sentencing are two distinct and separate parts of the process. Which is why nobody involved in the case is arguing that he was never convicted and that the plea agreement should be thrown out. Heck, if you spend 5 seconds thinking about the case, why are people still arguing that the original sentencing suggestion should still be followed if the agreement is void? Why are people filing motions about sentencing if he was never convicted to begin with?


Or the tl;dr version:




So enjoy being wrong for a couple more pages. But I'm out.

I can't believe we've gone 3 pages of arguing with someone who is saying a plea bargain isn't a conviction.

What a weirdly incorrect hill to die on.

 Ouze wrote:
I can't believe we've gone 3 pages of arguing with someone who is saying a plea bargain isn't a conviction.

What a weirdly incorrect hill to die on.

I can't believe we've gone 3 pages with someone desperately trying to legitimize rape.

It's a fething weird world.

 ScarletRose wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I can't believe we've gone 3 pages of arguing with someone who is saying a plea bargain isn't a conviction.

What a weirdly incorrect hill to die on.

I can't believe we've gone 3 pages with someone desperately trying to legitimize rape.

It's a fething weird world.

I haven't seen anyone do that.

 ScarletRose wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I can't believe we've gone 3 pages of arguing with someone who is saying a plea bargain isn't a conviction.

What a weirdly incorrect hill to die on.

I can't believe we've gone 3 pages with someone desperately trying to legitimize rape.

It's a fething weird world.

I think that's a bridge too far. We've seen 3 pages of frankly ludicrous levels of pedantry, based on a misunderstanding of how law courts work, but we haven't seen anyone actually try to legitimize rape, I don't think.

 feeder wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I can't believe we've gone 3 pages of arguing with someone who is saying a plea bargain isn't a conviction.

What a weirdly incorrect hill to die on.

I can't believe we've gone 3 pages with someone desperately trying to legitimize rape.

It's a fething weird world.

I think that's a bridge too far. We've seen 3 pages of frankly ludicrous levels of pedantry, based on a misunderstanding of how law courts work, but we haven't seen anyone actually try to legitimize rape, I don't think.

The argument is "it's not rape even if you're caught, charged, plea and admit it publicly because the judge didn't double pinky swear"

Given all the systemic barriers to getting rapists to trial (the backlog of untested rape kits, social stigma, dudebros who'll not just claim every allegation is made up but actively stalk the victims) the argument that it absolutely must be a flawless conviction with no plea bargaining is pretty legitimizing. It's basically saying not only can people get away with it but they should "becuz justice"

 ScarletRose wrote:

 feeder wrote:

I think that's a bridge too far. We've seen 3 pages of frankly ludicrous levels of pedantry, based on a misunderstanding of how law courts work, but we haven't seen anyone actually try to legitimize rape, I don't think.

The argument is "it's not rape even if you're caught, charged, plea and admit it publicly because the judge didn't double pinky swear"

Given all the systemic barriers to getting rapists to trial (the backlog of untested rape kits, social stigma, dudebros who'll not just claim every allegation is made up but actively stalk the victims) the argument that it absolutely must be a flawless conviction with no plea bargaining is pretty legitimizing. It's basically saying not only can people get away with it but they should "becuz justice"

I don't think that is the position. "Events don't happen unless a jury finds they did in a court of law" is a pretty strange way to live your life.

I think we are hung up on a very, very, almost impossibly pedantic definition of "what 'is' is". 'Is' Polanski a rapist? Well yes, in the sense that he actually committed the act of rape, but also no, in the sense that he wasn't found guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers.

Except that second part isn't true, because part of accepting a plea deal is accepting guilt, with all the same ramifications that a jury trial guilty verdict renders.

You can lead a horse to facts, but you can't make him drink.

Hold on, we have lawyers here on DakkaDakka, we can solve this whole thing right now. Just let me find my summoning candles, a fresh $100 Bill, some Texmex, and the collar of a weiner dog.

Oh great and powerful litigator, we call upon you for your assistance in squashing this beef! I call upon you now, in our time of need! The power of Christ compels you!

I think I did that right.

Lts knock them down one at a time.

 d-usa wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Nope it is still conditional, and the defendant can drop it if they like.

Wrong. Once it's entered and accepted, it's done and done. You can appeal and whatnot, but the conviction stands.

Reality disagrees.

Here you go:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/withdrawing-guilty-plea-criminal-case.html

This is about guilty pleas, not plea bargaining which has additional safeguards on top of those here. But even an unconditional guilty plea can be withdrawn in some circumstances, though they are limited.
A plea is NOT a conviction of itself, though it normally expedites the process towards one..

 d-usa wrote:

It was the judge two reneged on the plea bargain.

Wrong. A judge cannot renege on a plea bargain, because a judge is not a party to a plea bargain.

The judge in the Polanski case did. That is a matter of public record.

You are confused because you mistake the fact that a plea bargain is made without the judge that it is not binding on the case. Remember that judges do not choose cases, decisions to charge are not made by a judge, the judges preside over cases brought to them.

 d-usa wrote:

Also you missed out how a plea agreement can include a sentencing limit

Depends. A plea agreement can include a recommendation for sentencing to the judge or it can tie the hands of the judge. To the best of my knowledge, Polanski's deal had the former.

Polanski's deal had the former, but the deal being offered was agreed by the judge but the judge changed his mind. This was consequent to a meeting with prosecution attorneys to which defence attorneys were excluded, a breach in judicial ethics, and the plans for sentencing were not just at variance with the plea agreement they were effectively opposite.
Even in cases where the judge retains levity there are guidelines to follow and those are modifiable by the plea agreement. The prosecution for reasons best known to themselves agreed to a wrist slap. the judge was after a full sentence, there was no comparison, this meant that the plea bargain was violated, and Polanski who initially pled not guilty was in effect cheated into giving a guilty plea by underhand means.
It was a fethed up case.

 d-usa wrote:

which is what the judge reneged upon,

Wrong. The judge did not renege on the plea agreement, because the judge had nothing to do with the plea agreement and has no requirement to follow the sentencing recommendation of the prosecution in this case

.

Again you are confused, see above.

 d-usa wrote:

also it is still NOT a conviction, its is a conditional plea.

Wrong. It's a conviction once it's entered by both parties and accepted by a judge.

You are disagreeing with legal reality.
It is a conviction at the conclusion of the trial, or sentencing hearing if there is no trial and no sooner.

Here is an example.




14:25

You can voluntarily withdraw a plea, you cant voluntarily withdraw a conviction. Plea is not equal to conviction.

I love seeing Judge Aquilina's demolition of Nassar at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing. But the relevant part here is that she did offer for Nassar to withdraw his plea, after a sentencing hearing was nearly concluded. Yes it was mind games, Nassar had never a cat in hells chance of aquittal and was already serving 60 years for child porn, so he wanted the whole process over. However if Nassar had said yes the next stage would be a trial.
Technically it was a risky play because Nassar was pled and pending conviction by agreement at the sentencing hearing's conclusion. At any time up until the conclusion if Nassar withdrew his plea there would have had to have been a trial, and this offer for a plea withdrawal occurred right at the end of an especially long sentencing hearing process.

 d-usa wrote:

Even a regular guilty plea is not a conviction until after conviction by the jury

'
Wrong. If you plead guilty, there won't be a jury trial and you are convicted by your own admission of guilt.

You presume too much, first you are mistaking a guilty plea for a no contest plea. With a guilty plea there is still normally a trial. People have even been aquitted after a guilty plea, but that is exceptionally rare and involves confusion of the defendant, or diminished responsibility, or ignorance of the case law. People have also pled guilty due to poor advice and fought a case later. A trial is often necessary to determine the level of guilt and also to air a case for the benefit of victims. A formal no contest plea results in no trial.
In all these cases there is a significant delay between a guilty plea and a conviction.

 d-usa wrote:

or referal to a sentencing hearing by mutual agreement.

Wrong. Conviction and sentencing are two separate phases of the process.

You got this bit right. Monkey chance?
However I wasn't claiming they were one and the same.

 d-usa wrote:

The Polanski case never got that far.

Wrong. He got through the conviction process. He is still pending the sentencing process.

Polanski was forced to undergo psychiatric testing as part of the plea agreement. He completed this but the conviction process was still ongoing. When it became clear that the plea bargain was being reneged upon he fled the US.
he was formally charged, he did plea under a plea bargain and he was arrainged and placed on probation. That is as far as it went.

 d-usa wrote:

However a plea agreement can also tie the hands of the judge to a limit on sentencing.

Wrong in this case. Sentencing is always up to the judge who can follow the law as written in any way he wants.

At the risk of violating the plea agreement and giving just cause for the defendant to withdraw a guilty plea without inference.

 d-usa wrote:

Polanski's legal team arranged generous terms including limits on sentencing. If the prosecutors agree the judges hands are tied.

Wrong in this case. See above.

It evidently wasn't what happened, but that is why the case was mishandled.

 d-usa wrote:

The judge can attempt to overrule but this violates the plea agreement and leaves its validity in question.

Wrong. The judge is free to follow the recommendation by the prosecutor, and he is also free to completely ignore it. Which is probably the reason why nobody actually involved in the legal case is actually arguing that the plea agreement is null and void.

Nobody? How about Lawrence Rittenbrand the actual judge involved. He was doing his best to backpeddle after this blew up in his face.

 d-usa wrote:

Notice the judge approved-plea bargain, that is to say the conviction occurs as a consequence of the sentencing hearing post plea bargain, as that is when the judge has direct input, it is NOT inherent to the plea itself but the conclusion of the process.

Wrong. Conviction and sentencing are two distinct and separate parts of the process.

This is true only if there has already been a trial in which a conviction is achieved at the conclusion . If there isn't a trial the case moves to sentencing hearing bypassing conviction which is assumed but not extant.. It is quite possible for a plea bargained sentencing hearing to fall apart due to a change in plea resulting in a trial.

 d-usa wrote:

Which is why nobody involved in the case is arguing that he was never convicted and that the plea agreement should be thrown out. Heck, if you spend 5 seconds thinking about the case, why are people still arguing that the original sentencing suggestion should still be followed if the agreement is void? Why are people filing motions about sentencing if he was never convicted to begin with?

That is easy to explain if you think about it. What is broken can be fixed. By restoring the plea agreement (which was ridiculously lenient) Polanski might be persuaded to voluntarily return to the US to get the process over and done with.
It would be a valid solution but has secondary unrelated problems, notably that Polanski fled the country and is subject to several potential felony charges resultant from that.

D, I hope you learned a valuable lesson, because posting that meme and abandoning the thread would have saved you a lot of time.

More importantly aside from Chinatown and Rosemary’s Baby his movies weren’t even that good or memorable. Directing a movie staring Jack Nicholson doesn’t make Polanski a genius.

Prestor Jon wrote:
More importantly aside from Chinatown and Rosemary’s Baby his movies weren’t even that good or memorable. Directing a movie staring Jack Nicholson doesn’t make Polanski a genius.

To be fair, Michael Bay still gets to direct movies, compared to his movies almost anyone is a genius

Prestor Jon wrote:
More importantly aside from Chinatown and Rosemary’s Baby his movies weren’t even that good or memorable. Directing a movie staring Jack Nicholson doesn’t make Polanski a genius.

The Pianist got in my head and messed it up for a good while after I watched it.

Prestor Jon wrote:
More importantly aside from Chinatown and Rosemary’s Baby his movies weren’t even that good or memorable. Directing a movie staring Jack Nicholson doesn’t make Polanski a genius.

I thought the Pianist was great, but I cant really say ive seen his other stuff however.

Prestor Jon wrote:
More importantly aside from Chinatown and Rosemary’s Baby his movies weren’t even that good or memorable. Directing a movie staring Jack Nicholson doesn’t make Polanski a genius.

I tried to order Roman Polanski's Pirates a while back, but somehow got the Jesse Jane Pirates instead... my wife swears that was an improvement.

The Auld Grump - and, to be fair, as porn movies go... it was one of the better ones.

 Ouze wrote:
I can't believe we've gone 3 pages of arguing with someone who is saying a plea bargain isn't a conviction.

What a weirdly incorrect hill to die on.

It is very important for some people not to be correct, but to be clever. They want to make a big show of having a very insightful understanding of an issue, and weirdly enough it doesn't matter if they've gotten the most basic facts wrong, what matters is they get to dismiss a simple, obvious idea and instead prove to themselves how clever they are by arguing for something much more complex and counter-intuitive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
More importantly aside from Chinatown and Rosemary’s Baby his movies weren’t even that good or memorable. Directing a movie staring Jack Nicholson doesn’t make Polanski a genius.

Chinatown is genius, but I got to admit finding Rosemary's Baby pretty underwhelming. Might have been one of those movies that hasn't aged well, I guess. I understand his most important stuff was the trendy european stuff from the '60s, which was influential and blah de blah. Most of his later stuff has varied between mediocre (The Ninth Gate) and middling (Ghost Writer), but that's pretty standard, most directors drop off later in their careers.

There's also a thing where we seem to overstate someone's strengths the more we learn about their awful failings. The more Polanksi's crime* has become clearly abhorrent, the more people have been tempted to declare his genius.




*Actually crimes because seriously you guys more than one girl has come forward.