Roman Polanski- No Justice Needed

[Andres]

I'm surprised that he was allowed to post bail if he is such a disgusting person, he could have raped another girl thinking he'd end up in prison for a long time anyway.

I think you're being very unfair now. At the time, there was no indication whatsoever that Polanski would flee the country to escape sentence. It was a perfectly reasonable decision.

Regardless, it doesn't take away the facts that a) according to the bilateral treaty between the US and Switerland, Switzerland is obliged to extradite Polanski; their reasons for refusing it are very poor excuses; b) Polanski is a child rapist for 's sake. Give me one good reason to protect that kind of scum. Read the quote in post #56 first.

[Beskar]

Roman Polanski is a paedophile.

[rory_20_uk]

I don't think he is - after all he's... had a vast army of women. He's a rake who isn't that concerned with matters such as the age of consent, probably only the onset of puberty.

[Husar]

I think you're being very unfair now. At the time, there was no indication whatsoever that Polanski would flee the country to escape sentence. It was a perfectly reasonable decision.

Regardless, it doesn't take away the facts that a) according to the bilateral treaty between the US and Switerland, Switzerland is obliged to extradite Polanski; their reasons for refusing it are very poor excuses; b) Polanski is a child rapist for 's sake. Give me one good reason to protect that kind of scum. Read the quote in post #56 first.

When it's a swiss judge letting him go free, he's a child-raping scumbag, when it's a US judge letting him go for a few days on a bailout, there was no reason to believe he could do anything against the law?
Jörg Kachelmann for example has been charged with raping his girlfriend, he has been in custody for like three months now and hasn't been let go because he is still under suspicion to have committed a serious crime. I just think that if an alleged crime has a certain severity, it makes little sense to let someone go on a bailout, especially if they can easily afford it.

[TinCow]

When it's a swiss judge letting him go free, he's a child-raping scumbag, when it's a US judge letting him go for a few days on a bailout, there was no reason to believe he could do anything against the law?
Jörg Kachelmann for example has been charged with raping his girlfriend, he has been in custody for like three months now and hasn't been let go because he is still under suspicion to have committed a serious crime. I just think that if an alleged crime has a certain severity, it makes little sense to let someone go on a bailout, especially if they can easily afford it.

It was part of the plea agreement. Polanksi agreed to plead guilty to the crime and undergo a 90 day psych evaluation in a state facility. In return, all but one of the charges agains him were dropped. As part of the plea agreement, his evaluation was delayed so that he could remain free and finishing working on a project he was in the middle of. He went to Germany, finished the project, then returned to the US to undergo his psych evaluation. After 42 days, he was released because the psych evaluation was felt to be completed and further jail time was not recommended by the psychiatrist. That is the point at which he fled.

Under these circumstances, there was really no expectation on anyone's part that he would run away. He had already pled guilty, gone to Europe, and come back to serve his psych evaluation period without any problems whatsoever. He was world famous and his entire career was centered in Hollywood. As far as I am concerned, he was about as low a flight risk as anyone there has ever been. The system of bail generally works. The simple fact that Polanski unexpectedly fled and has successfully evaded capture for 33 years does not change the facts as they were when he was released. Polanski was simply not considered a flight risk. Saying otherwise is arguing with hindsight.

[Don Corleone]

I don't know how the bail system works in Germany, so I cannot say what the comparison should be. But in the U.S. legal system, there is a fundamental concept called "presumption of innocence". In other words, until the State can actually prove that you're guilty, you're not. It's almost as though at the moment you're found guilty, by a jury or by a judge, you're almost imbued with the 'guilt', even though you may have committed the crime itself several months or years earlier. Because of this presumption, people that are awaiting a verdict (either a trial or entering a plea-agreement) are still expected to be treated as innocent, and therefore, is allowed to remain free until the 'magic moment'.

Now, we're not idiots, and many folks awaiting a verdict flee. So we require you to post a guarantee, conmensurate with the severity of your crime and how likely you are to flee. It was in this limbo that Polanski found himself when he fled the country. He was going to enter a plea, believing that he we would be released on "time served", he had already been incarcerated for the duration of the sentance, or the rest would be probated.

However, once he fled, any expectation of bail and freedom while expecting sentancing evaporated. Another fundamental legal principle in the US is that the court, any court, can order anybody, anywhere, anytime to appear before it. Failure to do so is an immediate crime. You will be immediately incarcerated and you can be kept incarcerated until the whim of the judge shifts to allow you out. It was this principle at work that compelled our former President, William Jefferson Clinton, to give a deposition on creative uses for cigars and stain-removal tips for blue-dresses.

What I'm getting at is our courts didn't have the right to keep Polanski under lock-and-key until he plead guilty and received a sentance or he fled the jurisdiction. He did the second before the first could be done. It doesn't sound as though things work the same in Germany.

When it's a swiss judge letting him go free, he's a child-raping scumbag, when it's a US judge letting him go for a few days on a bailout, there was no reason to believe he could do anything against the law?
Jörg Kachelmann for example has been charged with raping his girlfriend, he has been in custody for like three months now and hasn't been let go because he is still under suspicion to have committed a serious crime. I just think that if an alleged crime has a certain severity, it makes little sense to let someone go on a bailout, especially if they can easily afford it.

[Hosakawa Tito]

When it's a swiss judge letting him go free, he's a child-raping scumbag, when it's a US judge letting him go for a few days on a bailout, there was no reason to believe he could do anything against the law he's still a baby raping scumbag!

Fixed it for ya. He got a sweetheart plea deal, 90 days in a psychiatric hospital of which he only served 42 days, for child molestation, all other charges promised to be dropped. That's a travesty in it's own right, and he knew it. So instead of facing the music at sentencing *because hey, maybe somebody might bring that travesty of justice thing up* the baby raping bail jumping coward fled, and has been looking over his shoulder ever since. I hope every time the doorbell or phone rings, when he suddenly sees a cop or hears a siren, he breaks out in a bit of a cold sweat and his sphincter tightens up. Roman, be sure that your sins will find you out.

[Meneldil]

Your amount of US-hate in this thread is totally misplaced and completely unnecessary. We're talking about a country protecting a child rapist. I fail to see how one can defend that.

Yada yada. He's a child rapist, fine. And then?

I don't give a damn about Roman Polanski. I'm actually in favor of him being sent to the US to face a trial and find the people who protect him quite disgusting.

But I'm certainly not in favor of Americans going all "ZOMGWTFBBQ" and starting some Swiss-hate madness because Switzerland refuses to extradites one person who's not even guilty of murder.
How many dictators have been supported by the US? How many criminals have been protected by the US? How many people have been killed because of your the US, France, Belgium?
Take back your "morally bankrupt nation" and other similar nation bashing, have a drink, cool down and then I might agree with you all.
Bash Polanski and the people who protect him (that includes most of the french intelligentsia) all you want, but bashing Switzerland isn't going to help your cause.

And yes, people who don't play by the rules have no right to feel outraged when someone else does the same. It's called (not) having a moral high ground.

Actually, what's going on here is quite silly and disgusting. Nobody cares about his victim or even about justice. The main issue here is trying to look tough on the international scene. Since Polanski is kind of a big-deal, it's all about either:
- showing that none can escape the almighty, fair but blind US justice
or
- showing that the Switzerland will stand for freedom and resist the tyrannical US

I say forget Polanski and start bothering about war criminals and dictators. That will be so much more useful.

[InsaneApache]

I don't blame the septics for being upset.

The man drugged and raped a child. If it doesn't make all right minded people angry, then I'm flummoxed as to what will.

[KukriKhan]

Imagine this guy's inner-life: parents in concentration camps, living under a false name as a catholic, married to a succession of actresses - one of whom, pregnant, gets murdered by the Manson cult, middle-aged "boyfriend" of several juvenile females, acclaimed film-maker, fugitive from justice, millionaire...

no one would believe the details of such a life were it written as a character in one of his stories. I don't know how he faces himself in the mirror when it's time to shave in the morning. The demons that must plague him.

For a finale, at age 80 he should fly to LA and turn himself in for the final 48 days of his sentence, serving the time with Manson and my own local serial girl-killer John Gardner at Corcoran State Prison.

[InsaneApache]

No one is denying that he had a terrible life, however, and I feel very strongly about this, that's no daisying excuse for daisying up a young lasses life. Things like this don't go away for a lass. He gets 48 days and 30 odd years living the highlife.

She gets a life sentence. Nuff said.

I'll paraphrase you when you once said to me: "Bud, I agree with almost everything you say....but in this case you're wrong"

[KukriKhan]

Then I have communicated badly, and led you to believe I harbour even a scintilla of sympathy for this coward.

I merely wanted to look at the case from another angle, the lads here having beaten the "filthy-paedo" drum loudly (and rightly) so far.