Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Roman polanski let off

  1. #21
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:30 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,026

    Re: Roman polanski let off

    Meh, what did he do that Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Tiger Woods didn't do?

    That foursome makes John Edwards look like a saint.
    Last edited by Erod; 07-16-10 at 12:54 PM.

  2. #22
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: Roman polanski let off

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Statute of limitations are irrelevant here because he had already been found guilty for the crime, and also because charges were already filed and the legal proceedings were not completed because he jumped bail.
    Incorrect. He has NOT been found guilty but arranged a plea deal.. big difference. And he fled the country because he learned that there was a large possibility that the Judge would not honour the plea deal and put him in jail.

    There was no sentencing other than the 90 days psychiatric evaluation and the parole board and the psychiatrists both said in written statements that Polanski should not receive jail time. The Judge more than hinted that he disagreed despite the plea deal... So Polanski fled to France, and no sentencing was ever carried out.

    If a judge seals the proceedings, the U.S. government can't release the information without an order from a state judge.
    Well then dont come crying claiming injustice when someone says that is not good enough in an extradition hearing. Sucks to live in a country that has such a fragmented and incoherent legal system that it cant honour its international agreements and requests.

    Always have to get your anti-U.S. slant in there, don't you. BTW, it isn't the US justice system here that is involved, but the California justice system.
    LOL yea.. California is not part of the US.. and the extradition treaty is not between the US and Switzerland but between California and the Swiss.. sure... yea right..

    I presume you do know the difference.
    Do you? The extradition treaty is between the US and the Swiss.. the Swiss requested any and all information, and the US could not comply. It is not the fault of the Swiss that the US federal system cant honour requests in international agreements just because of a piss ant local wanna be judge in California.

    I don't know what the specifics of the extradition treaty are between the USA and Switzerland, but since there is already a conviction in the case and the only thing that needs to be done here is sentencing and him to serve said sentence, it should have been a straight forward case.
    There is no conviction or sentencing. And it is hardly straight forward. The Swiss asked for any and all information concerning the case and the US did not provide it.. end of story. He is a free man.

    He commited a dispicable crime and he ran away from justice.
    so have many other people and their cases have not been persuade in the same way at such a high cost to the US taxpayer.
    Last edited by PeteEU; 07-16-10 at 12:54 PM.
    PeteEU

  3. #23
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: Roman polanski let off

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    A) It doesn't matter if she was willing or not, it wasn't as if she was 17 or something, she was only 13 she wouldn't have even been in high school yet. The only reason why he wasn't charged with anything more than statutory rape is because the girl did not want to testify in open court since Polanski would have had the Constitutional right to face his accuser had her lawyers not offered a plea bargain.
    No he entered a plea deal that meant he would plead guilty to statutory rape and all other charges would be dropped. Part of the plea deal was that there would be no jail time, something the that judge went back on and hence Polanski fled.

    B) The girl testified that not only was she drugged but that she said no and that he didn't just rape her he raped her in the most brutal fashion imagineable.
    Yes... word against word basically. Would not be the first time some girl claimed rape when there was non.. and no I am not saying she was not raped, just that the evidence was at best flimsy.
    PeteEU

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Roman polanski let off

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    No he entered a plea deal that meant he would plead guilty to statutory rape and all other charges would be dropped. Part of the plea deal was that there would be no jail time, something the that judge went back on and hence Polanski fled.
    You have obviously never been to court on a criminal charge, sentencing for plea deals are not finalized until you are actually in the court room before the judge, the states attorney may agree to a plea deal but it is never finalized until you actually go to court and the judge signs off on it, I know this from personal experience because I had a plea deal set with the state's attorney all ready to go and the judge did not accept it. Regardless statutes of limitations only apply to proceeding with criminal prosecution, meaning that if you're charged with say bank robbery and you skip bail and flee the country you can still be prosecuted even after the statute of limitations have expired statutes of limitations ONLY apply to when charges can be brought forward after a certain length after the crime has been committed EG the state can not charge you and commence legal proceedings against you after the statute of limitations has expired even based on new evidence save in heinous crimes; rape I believe being one of them and if it isn't it should be.

    Yes... word against word basically. Would not be the first time some girl claimed rape when there was non.. and no I am not saying she was not raped, just that the evidence was at best flimsy.
    It doesn't matter if it was consensual or not really, she was 13, she wasn't even close to legal age. 17 maybe, he would still be a complete scumbag, but 13 no ****ing way, that's just wrong.

  5. #25
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: Roman polanski let off

    Not to deviate the thread, but maybe, Polanski's lawyers know that the American judicial system is crumbling under its own weight.

  6. #26
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Roman polanski let off

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Incorrect. He has NOT been found guilty but arranged a plea deal.. big difference. And he fled the country because he learned that there was a large possibility that the Judge would not honour the plea deal and put him in jail.
    He pleaded guilty. When you plead guilty, it gets entered as a conviction. The judge is not required to honor any plea deal between an accused and a prosecutor. The judge has the final say on any plea deal. This still does not give Polanski or anyone else the right to flee.

    There was no sentencing other than the 90 days psychiatric evaluation and the parole board and the psychiatrists both said in written statements that Polanski should not receive jail time. The Judge more than hinted that he disagreed despite the plea deal... So Polanski fled to France, and no sentencing was ever carried out.
    Right. He fled BEFORE sentencing could come down. In the U.S. sentencing typically comes in a separate proceding from the conviction.

    Well then dont come crying claiming injustice when someone says that is not good enough in an extradition hearing. Sucks to live in a country that has such a fragmented and incoherent legal system that it cant honour its international agreements and requests.
    Anti-U.S. bias shows again, heh? You expect Americans to respect the different processes in Europe, but you decline to admit that the U.S. has equally valid processes. Do you understand what FEDERALISM means?

    There is apparently no basis for the Swiss request. Even a Swiss newspaper had to question the rationale for this refusal according to an AP article. link


    Another Zurich paper, the Tages-Anzeiger, called the Swiss decision "shaky."

    "It breaks with the tradition of only examining the formal correctness of extradition requests," it said. "Perhaps the new practice will in the future also benefit detainees who have less of a lobby than the world-famous director."

    LOL yea.. California is not part of the US.. and the extradition treaty is not between the US and Switzerland but between California and the Swiss.. sure... yea right..
    Once again, showing a willful ignornace of the U.S. system and the fact that the United States has a federal system of government. The Federal government has no authority whatsoever over the California Court System except in areas where the federal constitution is involved.

    Do you? The extradition treaty is between the US and the Swiss.. the Swiss requested any and all information, and the US could not comply. It is not the fault of the Swiss that the US federal system cant honour requests in international agreements just because of a piss ant local wanna be judge in California.
    Typically, extradition treaties do not require any and all information. Typically they require basic evidence, and in this case there is a guilty plea and a formal conviction. The request was about the 90 days, but that wasn't the final sentence. He fled sentencing. That was the whole point. What we likely have here is a Swiss minister who is a fan of his films and was looking for the flimsiest excuse to let him go.



    There is no conviction or sentencing. And it is hardly straight forward. The Swiss asked for any and all information concerning the case and the US did not provide it.. end of story. He is a free man.
    No sentencing because he FLED sentencing. There was a conviction as he pled guilty.

    so have many other people and their cases have not been persuade in the same way at such a high cost to the US taxpayer.
    As well they should be. He commited a crime, used his citizenship status in other countries to flee and escape punishment for his crime, something that has been abetted by France and Poland for decades -- and now Switzerland. Why am I not surprised you would actually defend this predetor against the legal and judicial system of the State of California?
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •