Now that your wife's murderer is dead, you're under arrest! ROMAN POLANSKI

I addressed that in a previous post. Trade publications like Variety routinely have information on where and when most new movies are being filmed. Heck, I could have told the L.A. prosecutors when and where Polanski was going to be, just by reading the current issue of Variety, during much of the last 20 years.

 

Yeah, it would be legal to charge him with drugging and raping a 13-year-old and fleeing the jurisdiction in order to avoid sentencing.


It's one thing to favor fair treatment of anyone regardless of the crime, but you seem to be really into defending this guy.

 

Look, at this point, there's just too much that's up in the air. It's far from certain that he would be extradited. There are appeals pending in both Switzerland and California. French and Polish officials are putting pressure on our Secretary of State, while many famous filmmakers from around the world are going to press Schwarzenegger to consider granting a pardon as California governor.

So, there are too many variables to really have a good idea of what is the most likely outcome, imho.

And as far as I am concerned, there is a bigger principle involved, which is due process of law. When there is a systematic failure to make sure people get due process of law, then that is a much bigger issue, I think, because it has potential ramifications on hundreds or even thousands of other cases, because it can lead to innocent people being wrongfully convicted, and/or criminals taking advantage of corrupt officials to evade justice.

 

I think there are many appeals pending before someone might be in a position to do that. It's possible he might avoid extradition, for example.

No, that's where you're clearly wrong. I don't care to defend any one individual. Everyone, without exception, should be tried and/or convicted according to the law. There should be no exceptions. To say or imply that Polanski should be an exception would be hypocritical on my part. I believe he should have served the sentence that was agreed upon by the defense and the prosecutors 30+ years ago.

 

I always thought it woud be a cold day in hell before i ever agreed with and posted a NY Times editorial. I better go find a sweater

Boba, you keep repeating that he is being denied due process. That's a crock. The only reason there hasn't been due process is because he went on the lam. Maybe the judge behaved wrongly, in fact, he probably did. That's why there is a an appeals system. Polanski instead took advantage of his wealth and put himself above the system. He committed a heinous crime against a minor. He pled guilty because he thought he was going to get away with only a slap on the wrist. When it looked like he might actually have to do prison time proportionate to the seriousness of his crime, he fled. Which makes him even more of a criminal.

 

Boba Jr, would it be worth pointing out that some of Polanski's movies, like Tess, had filmings planned around him having to avoid certain countries, as he couldn't go film in Dorset and elsewhere in England where the book was set because the U.S. and the U.K. have an extradition treaty that would have led to him being extradited.

Points of fact
1. He was found guilty of raping a 13 year old girl.
2. He fled the country.
3. He has avoided, to at least some extent, countries that he could be extradited from.
4. He turned down a deal with California that would've had him sentenced ONLY to time served.

Just because his location was known doesn't mean that he could be extradited from a given location, and you have ZERO concern with due process if you are supporting him because you're rewarding someone for NOT accepting due process. There is no systematic failure because the system was never even given a chance to fix the issue because he instead fled the country.

 

I'm not saying he's being denied due process, I'm saying he didn't get due process of law at the time the case was first being tried.

In order for someone to get due process, isn't it a reasonable expectation that the officials and civil servants involved (judges, prosecutors) would not engage in any wrong-doing of their own that prevents the charged from getting a fair process? It may be true that such misconduct can, in some cases, be fought in the appeals process. But that can still leave people serving time in jail that wouldn't have been part of their sentence in the absence of prosecutorial misconduct.

What bothers me isn't Polanski being brought to justice (why should it?) but the way in which the authorities have repeatedly acted in a way that seems to suggest they're more concerned with their reputation than in serving the cause of justice. The original judge in the case was obsessed with getting his name in the newspapers, especially in connection with any case that involved celebrities. He reneged on his agreement with prosecutors largely because he was afraid of getting bad publicity in the media, of being accused of being soft on someone because he was a celebrity.

And now, after 30 years during which it would have been relatively easy to detain Polanski abroad, it is only after the HBO documentary that made the prosecuting side look so bad that they're actually making a tangible effort to bring him before an L.A. court. That to me seems to suggest opportunism on the part of the prosecutors, rather than a true concern with upholding the law.

You may think or feel that this is about Polanski, but to me personally, I think it should be a matter of principle.

I'm not against Polanski facing further criminal punishment, in accordance with the law, if that is what you are suggesting (and if I'm wrong about you trying to suggest as much, then I'm sorry, accept my apology).

 

I don't mean to be nit-picky, but I think there's a difference between pleading guilty to something and being found guilty of something. When you're found guilty, I believe that means having been found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt by a jury of one's peers.

I'm supposedly "supporting" Polanski because I'm rewarding someone for NOT accepting due process? I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand that sentence. I don't want to "reward" anyone in any way.

And the systematic failure applies not just to the Polanski case, it applies to many cases which were tainted by the judge's behavior, because the kind of illegal behavior in which he engaged was not, as far as I know, limited only to this particular case.

 

I don't mean to be nit-picky, but he doesn't deny having sex with the 13 year old girl. He never has. There is no reason at all to believe he didn't. Are you really going to start contesting this thread on the basis that you don't think the two ever had any sexual contact? Or. . .???

Systemic failures of anything tend to involve, you know, the whole system. Not a single judge. That besides, plea bargains aren't sancrosanct. It's perfectly legal for a judge to reject one. Much less, anyway, than child rape laws. Which you don't seem much bothered about having Polanksi violate.

 

Yes, that may be true, but that doesn't change the fact that part of the reason for there being a plea bargain agreement in the first place is the fact that, if I remember correctly, the prosecutors didn't really want to go to trial. I will have to watch the HBO documentary again to refresh my memory on those points, but IIRC, there was concern that if the case went to trial, the victim would not want to testify against him, thus making it much harder for the prosecution to obtain a conviction.

I believe there is evidence that it was more than just a judge. But since I'm not really interested in arguing semantics, I would rephrase it to say that it seems pretty clear that other cases were almost certainly affected by the judge's corrupt and unethical actions.

As far as plea bargains being "sacrosanct", I think that the real issue there is that prosecutors shouldn't trick someone into pleading guilty by using promises they don't intend to keep. That just undermines the whole system, and the plea bargain process is part of that system. And I believe it is an important tool for prosecutors in as far as it allows them to sometimes secure convictions that they may not be sure they could get by going to trial.

Lastly, why on Earth would you even suggest I'm not "much bothered" by what Polanski did? I have never once said that what he did wasn't wrong. I have never suggested he should not have been prosecuted according to the law from the very beginning. I don't think there's any condoning him for what he did, except perhaps for his victim, who has the right to say that she forgives him.

But you seem to be saying that all we should focus in is ONE case, where what was happening as far as the L.A. Courts go, involved possibly HUNDREDS of cases where the justice system may have been undermined, where wrongful prosecutions may have taken place, etc.

I don't think pointing that out in any way minimizes Polanski's wrongdoing.

 

A rather good explanation of the facts and the applicable law from slate.com

 

Look, I'm not interested in discussing semantics. If it's the word "systematic" that you object to, I'll just rephrase it to say there's every indication that the judge's actions would have affected more than just one case. Would it really seem plausible for the judge to engage in questionable behavior in just one case, and then go strictly by the book with everybody else?

I'd like to watch the documentary again in the next few days so that I can go into greater details about many of the things he mentions... but that should be good to give you an idea.

So, just to recap, I think anyone who is either found guilty or pleads guilty should be punished in accordance to the law. And, yes, that means that the judges and prosecutors in the case should go by the book and not engage in any "funny business" that violates the principle of due process.

You may think this is just about Polanski. To me, it's a larger issue than just that - and I don't say that to minimize or deny his wrongdoing. Nor do I think he should have received anything less that what was lawful and appropriate under the circumstances - and that the same should apply to any person, regardless of what they were convicted of.

EDIT: the part about the photos from Germany I do remember, but the judge wasn't really concerned with what they might indicate about Polanski's character; IIRC, he was more worried that the photos be published in the local media and put him in an embarrassing position.

 

Just read an interesting op-ed by one of Polanski's closest collaborators:

Op-Ed Contributor
Why Arrest Roman Polanski Now?
By ROBERT HARRIS

Kingsbury, England

FOR more than two and a half years I have been working almost continuously with the director Roman Polanski, first on a screenplay of my novel ?Pompeii? ? which was never made ? and then on a movie of another of my books, ?The Ghost,? which was shot earlier this year. I have never collaborated with anyone more closely.

So when, just before lunch on Sunday, the news broke that Mr. Polanski had been arrested overnight at the Zurich airport on an outstanding warrant relating to a conviction for sex with a minor back in the 1970s, my first response was to feel almost physically sick. Mr. Polanski has become a good friend. Our families have spent time together. His daughter and mine keep in regular touch. His past did not bother me, any more (presumably) than it did the three French presidents with whom he has had private dinners, or the hundreds of actors and technicians who have worked with him since 1977, or the fans who come up to him in the streets of Paris for his autograph.

My second response, when the shock wore off, was to wonder, why now? I have worked several times with Mr. Polanski in Switzerland, where he owns a house in Gstaad. He travels back and forth from France a dozen times a year. If Mr. Polanski is such a physical danger and moral affront to civilized society that he must be locked up, even at the age of 76, why was he not picked up earlier, when he was 66, or 56 ? or even 46? It would not have been hard to grab him at his home: his name is on the doorbell.

To answer this question the Los Angeles County district attorney, Stephen L. Cooley, has issued a ?timeline? purporting to show the numerous efforts made by his office to have Mr. Polanski arrested. In fact it reveals precisely the opposite: how half-heartedly the case has been pursued since 1978, when Mr. Polanski fled the United States. On only five occasions ? right at the outset, when he flew to London; in 1986, when it was rumored he might visit Canada; in 1988, when it was suggested he might be headed to Brazil, or elsewhere in Europe; in 2005, when he went to Thailand; and in 2007, when he visited Israel ? do overseas authorities seem to have been contacted by the district attorney with specific information about his presence. This is hardly a red-hot manhunt.

Mr. Cooley?s office maintains that Mr. Polanski?s visit to the Zurich Film Festival over the weekend was different. It offered a unique opportunity to seize him, the office says, because officials knew for the first time precisely where he would be, and when. But Mr. Polanski was always heading off to film festivals and award ceremonies when I worked with him. To take only one example, his appearance at the Turin Film Festival last November had been advertised across the Internet since the February before. In other words, the district attorney had nine months? notice of where he would be and when.

So it seems fair to deduce that the capture of Mr. Polanski ? who has never been accused of similar offenses before 1977 or since ? was an understandably low priority for the California criminal justice system, a system so short of money, that a court ordered it to release 40,000 convicts early because of prison overcrowding.

I suspect that this peculiar standoff ? of sporadic, bureaucratic twitchings to remind the world that Mr. Polanski was still a fugitive, but no serious attempts at arrest ? would have continued had it not been for Marina Zenovich?s 2008 documentary, ?Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.? As it happens, I was with Mr. Polanski ? in Switzerland, in fact ? last year when the documentary was first shown at the Sundance Film Festival. We were having dinner when Mr. Polanski?s agent, Jeff Berg, rang to say he had just seen it. He conveyed good news: the film was unexpectedly favorable to the director, revealing just how bizarre had been the judge?s handling of the original case.

For Mr. Polanski, this was a

 

Okay Boba Jr. You win. We'll all always think of you as the guy who tirelessly defended the rapist. Happy now?

 

Incidentally, since that article mentioned it, I'm trying to see if he could likely be extradited from Italy, and that extradition agreement has a provision that it has to be a violation of law in both countries.

This is unrelated to this case so ignore the case references, but

http://www.asil.org/insights050707.cfm

Now with the age of consent in Italy being 14, I'm trying to find out if that's enough to mean that the charge wouldn't fall as a crime in Italy potentially, which would have prevented extradition from Italy, although I can't get time frames for how long that's been the age of consent.

 

Sorry, why are you wondering about the age of consent in Italy? Do you think the only reason she said no repeatedly is because the age of consent in California was so high? If only the age of consent was a little lower she would have said yes?

 

Because he was charged with unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, and if she wasn't considered a minor in Italy then the extradition agreement had no effect.

 

This is my last post on the subject, I'll quote a very good blog on the Newsweek website:

 

This is not an uncommon occurrence for the judge to not accept the plea agreement and give a tougher sentence. This just happened recently to Michael Vick. In Vick's plea arrangement with the prosecutors for the dog fighting charges, the prosecution agreed not to seek a prison term longer than 13 months. However, the judge didn't think that 13 months was an appropriate sentence and sentenced Vick to 23 months instead.

It is also my understanding and my remembrance from law school that if the judge rejects the plea agreement and imposes a tougher sentence, then the defendant has the right to withdraw his plea and to contest all of the charges against him in a jury trial. The defendant would have the right to plead not guilty in such a trial and any evidence of the defendant's plea or the failed plea agreement would be inadmissible at trial. Therefore, the defendant could get a full jury trial where the prosecution would have to prove all charges beyond a reasonable doubt, all without prejudice to the defendant because of the failed plea.

 

I don't think that was the case in this case. The judge had agreed to go along with the suggested sentence, and had given his word to that effect. It's not like the prosecutors came to him, and he refused to go along with that from the start.

But there's a lot of other examples of the judge's unethical behavior, not just the fact that he reneged on his word. This is a judge that eventually the defense and the prosecution sought to remove from the case.

What Polanski did was wrong.
What the judge did was wrong.
What the victims' parents did, in allowing her to attend a party at Jack Nicholson's house because they wanted her to break into the movies and become a star, was also probably wrong.

And, for that matter, it was probably wrong (or at least in very poor judgement) for Jack Nicholson to let Polanski party at his house... not that he bears any legal responsibility in the matter, of course, AFAIK.

I think we could spend days and weeks discussing all of the things that were done wrong. Doesn't make them more wrong, or less wrong.

What will be truly amazing is if anything that comes out of this seems right to everyone. I don't think that will ever happen.

 

What Polanski did was wrong.
What the judge did was wrong.
What the victims' parents did, in allowing her to attend a party at Jack Nicholson's house because they wanted her to break into the movies and become a star, was also probably wrong.

Wait, are you actually, seriously comparing the heinous criminal act of drugging and raping an explicitly non-consenting child with the poor parenting of taking your kid to a party she shouldn't be at?

 

Not her whole statement, but wow. What do European JCers have to say about this?

 

i'm personally not fussed about restoring some supposed justice and arresting this man just to make a point. aren't we all proud now blahblahblah

and now somebody will say BUT HE RAPED A GIRL! SHE WAS UNDERAGE!!!! THIS IS EVIL!!!

 

NIAWYC

I've always thought people make way too big of a deal out of drugging and raping minors. Get over it you prudes.


. . .