• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Roman Polanski be punished for his crime?

Should Roman Polanski be punished for his crime?


  • Total voters
    100
google Polanski and read the press releases and it is in many of them. you can be as anal about this as you like. i have yet to insult any of you. i have been attacked and insulted and apparently the mods do nothing because i don't have 7000 posts yet.

i am just the whipping person here because you people just don't get it. you defended Bush you defend your courts. in your eyes America can do no wrong. well they can they do and they did and in this they are wrong and the courts have done more damage to this woman than a gang rape and you nor anyone on your side of the fence give a **** about her. you just care that this beast is behind bars. maybe if your courts and police hadn't dropped the ball as you do in so many areas we would not be debating this now.

You hate the American justice system. We get it. :roll:

Polanski's lawyers at the time should have (and most probably did if they're worth anything) made it clear that a plea bargain is not set in stone until the actual hearing when the judge makes his final ruling and sentencing. The judge, right or wrong, changed his mind. Polanski's back up plan in case of such an eventuality was obviously to flea and become a fugitive. Great plan, unless you get stupid and careless. He got stupid and careless.

Choice -------> Consequence

Personally, I think that the matter should have been dropped long ago. If he ever voluntarily set foot on US soil, then, yes, by all means, grab the repulsive individual and deal with him through the US courts. But this whole international man-hunt over a 30 year old questionable statutory rape case was just not necessary.
 
you may want to read all of the court documents and the reporting that was done on just how the courts railroaded Polanski into that confession.

Unlike you I have read the Court papers his Lawyer at the timke told him to plead guilty because they had him dead to right .

Have you read the Grand Jury transcript it is posted either in this thread or the other one in BN section. If it actaully had gone to trail he would have been thrown in Jail for Life, his Lawyer told him and he accepted to plead guilty. What ****ing part of that don't you understand huh.
 
Apparently, you don't actually know how the court system works, then.

If the plea was contingent on a deal that the judge then rejects, the plea is thrown out and there's a trial.

If you're going to get all righteous about a court system being "fair," then maybe you should actually find out how it works. :roll:

Before you criticize someone for not knowing how the court works.....you might to find out for yourself because apparently it is YOU who is wrong.

The plea agreement for for probation and what they call a "90 day diagnostic". This is a psychiatric review in which a psychiatrist evaluates the person over 90 days and then renders an opinion on whether probation is appropriate or whether it should be state prison.

The report recommended state prison. The judge (who had already accepted the 90 day diagnostic plea bargain) changed his mind and said that he wasn't going to uphold his end of the bargain and follow the recommendation of the report. This is VERY different than a judge refusing to accept a plea bargain worked out between the DA and the defense because the Judge had already accepted this plea agreement. He reneged on his end of the bargain.
 
Unlike you I have read the Court papers his Lawyer at the timke told him to plead guilty because they had him dead to right .

Have you read the Grand Jury transcript it is posted either in this thread or the other one in BN section. If it actaully had gone to trail he would have been thrown in Jail for Life, his Lawyer told him and he accepted to plead guilty. What ****ing part of that don't you understand huh.

However, most of what is in the Grand Jury Transcript has been recanted. And even before that the DA indicated that there were problems with the credbility of the witnesses and other problems in proof as other witnesses came forward. There were substantial inconsistencies in the story of the mother and the girl, which were substantiated by the subsequent recanting of the story. The DA knew they had a weak case. This is why they settled the case.
 
However, most of what is in the Grand Jury Transcript has been recanted. And even before that the DA indicated that there were problems with the credbility of the witnesses and other problems in proof as other witnesses came forward. There were substantial inconsistencies in the story of the mother and the girl, which were substantiated by the subsequent recanting of the story. The DA knew they had a weak case. This is why they settled the case.
But they settled. If the case was that weak, then Polanski could have forced the trial knowing he was going to walk. Instead, he not only broke the law by having sex with a 13-year-old, he broke the law again by fleeing the country.
 
Before you criticize someone for not knowing how the court works.....you might to find out for yourself because apparently it is YOU who is wrong.

The plea agreement for for probation and what they call a "90 day diagnostic". This is a psychiatric review in which a psychiatrist evaluates the person over 90 days and then renders an opinion on whether probation is appropriate or whether it should be state prison.

The report recommended state prison. The judge (who had already accepted the 90 day diagnostic plea bargain) changed his mind and said that he wasn't going to uphold his end of the bargain and follow the recommendation of the report. This is VERY different than a judge refusing to accept a plea bargain worked out between the DA and the defense because the Judge had already accepted this plea agreement. He reneged on his end of the bargain.

Even if that's true, the guilty plea is still contingent on the judge accepting the deal, and he doesn't "get" Polanski without a trial. The defense attorneys would have a slam dunk there.
 
Perhaps the reason for the discrepancy was that there was a lot of things unknown regarding the case and likely difficult for the prosecution to get a conviction. What is clear is that this is not the case of a pedophile picking up a 13 year old and raping them. This case involved the girl and her mother essentially attempting to get a break in Hollywood through sexual favors. That doesn't make it right, but it makes it a different type of case. It is also unclear whether Polanski actually knew the girl was underage. Most accounts indicate that the girl looked and carried herself as substantially older.

People should read the testimony of the victim in this case if they doubt Polanski's guilt.

The Smoking Gun: Archive

The teenager's troubling--and contemporaneous--account of her abuse at Polanski's hands begins with her posing twice for topless photos that the director said were for French Vogue. The girl then told prosecutors how Polanski directed her to, "Take off your underwear" and enter the Jacuzzi, where he photographed her naked. Soon, the director, who was then 43, joined her in the hot tub. He also wasn't wearing any clothes and, according to Gailey's testimony, wrapped his hands around the child's waist.

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."

Rape is rape, and the victim was a 13-year-old girl. I don't care how brilliant he is, he should die in prison.

What if this was your daughter?
 
So it's only conservatives who are opposed to rape? I think there are plenty of liberals who would find that incredibly offensive.



This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Congratulations, nothing you say will ever be taken seriously.



Because he paid some very good and very expensive lawyers to do their jobs.



Not really. It happens quite frequently in cases where the agreed upon penalty is wildly disproportionate to the crime, as it was in this case.

It really comes down to this - what do you think is an adequate punishment for the forcible rape of a 13 year old? If you think 42 days is fair, then I don't know what to say to you.



Uh, what? Where are you getting this?



lol, no, not even close. Hell, I worked on a case this summer where a judge rejected a plea - it's not even remotely "unprecedented." You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.



You also don't understand the role of the courts.

it seems your courts are accustomed to bribes if there are deals made. i guess if legal bribery works for you than the courts in your eyes may be excellent.

your court system stinks. your judges are no more than con men. when you look at the prisons in your country you see just who the people do not like.

that is how it is in America even in justice. Polanski may well have done what he was accused of. that was never proven in a trial. but it seems as if the US doesn't like to do it the correct way. there was no trial. there was a deal and the conman judge went against it. i would run from your courts as well. they seem no more than a pick and choose system of who goes and who doesn't.

now i know why your asinine court room TV shows have such high ratings. because American justice is a joke.
 
They make deals for the simple reason of expediancy. (though that is not the sole reason at times) It frees up court time to deal with those that try to fight the system because either they are really innocent (in which case they aren't exactly fighting the system...just getting their due process) or because the criminal thinks that they can get away with commiting their crime due to a technicality. Which does happen.

It also saves money.

After all if a person is willing to confess to a lesser charge why not accept that then have to go through the long, legal, expensive process of setting up three different court dates and proving the suspect innocent/guilty?

In case you don't know the three different court dates are as follows.

First court date is so the suspect can plead guilty or not guilty. If they plead guilty then they are remanded into custody until a sentencing court date can be made. If they plead not guilty it goes to the second process.

Second court date is the actual trial. A trial can last just one day or as long as months. (take a gander at OJ Simpson's murder trial for an example of how long a trial can be made to last)

Third court date is the sentencing of someone that pleads guilty or was found guilty of a crime during their trial.

Making a deal skips two whole court dates.
Pleading guilty at the first hearing skips one court date.
Being found innocent skips one court date.
Being found guilty makes you go through all three court dates.

As far as Polanski goes on why he was offered a deal I have no idea. There could be any number of reasons. Including the above reason.

they makes deal to line their pockets with silver. a court is not let's make a deal. it is justice. give me a break. that is so full of **** it even stinks online.
 
What makes you say that? Our political neutrality on the world stage does not in any way mean that we don't strictly follow international criminal laws. We honor our agreements and bilateral treaties to the letter.

is that like the judge honored his agreement with Polanski. LOL
 
You hate the American justice system. We get it. :roll:

Polanski's lawyers at the time should have (and most probably did if they're worth anything) made it clear that a plea bargain is not set in stone until the actual hearing when the judge makes his final ruling and sentencing. The judge, right or wrong, changed his mind. Polanski's back up plan in case of such an eventuality was obviously to flea and become a fugitive. Great plan, unless you get stupid and careless. He got stupid and careless.

Choice -------> Consequence

Personally, I think that the matter should have been dropped long ago. If he ever voluntarily set foot on US soil, then, yes, by all means, grab the repulsive individual and deal with him through the US courts. But this whole international man-hunt over a 30 year old questionable statutory rape case was just not necessary.

not just the court system. thanks

he made a deal and apparently this is how the courts work there.
the deal was not honored by the judge so he fled. who in his right mind would not make that attempt. the judge and the US court that he was in at the time lied. seems that is what happens in those courts all the time.
 
it seems your courts are accustomed to bribes if there are deals made. i guess if legal bribery works for you than the courts in your eyes may be excellent.

your court system stinks. your judges are no more than con men. when you look at the prisons in your country you see just who the people do not like.

that is how it is in America even in justice. Polanski may well have done what he was accused of. that was never proven in a trial. but it seems as if the US doesn't like to do it the correct way. there was no trial. there was a deal and the conman judge went against it. i would run from your courts as well. they seem no more than a pick and choose system of who goes and who doesn't.

now i know why your asinine court room TV shows have such high ratings. because American justice is a joke.

He plead guilty. It's not a question of whether or not he rapped a 13 year old, he did. This defense of pedophiles is disgusting and all you're doing is taking the time to bash America. Pathetic. The American judicial system is well more fair and open than many other places. While there could be argument for problems on the legislative and policing side; the court system remains well open.

If all you want to do is sit around and find excuses to bash America, take it elsewhere. If you want to join in the debate, please do so in an intellectually honest manner.
 
Unlike you I have read the Court papers his Lawyer at the timke told him to plead guilty because they had him dead to right .

Have you read the Grand Jury transcript it is posted either in this thread or the other one in BN section. If it actaully had gone to trail he would have been thrown in Jail for Life, his Lawyer told him and he accepted to plead guilty. What ****ing part of that don't you understand huh.

i did and he was to be jailed without a trial. because the confession was falsely attained.
 
is that like the judge honored his agreement with Polanski. LOL

I guess we'll never know if the judge would have since Polanski RAN AWAY! He broke more laws by running and fleeing the country instead of having balls and being a man and taking his medicine. Would the judge honored the plea agreement? Probably, but we'll never know because Polanski ran like a French man facing the German army.
 
i did and he was to be jailed without a trial. because the confession was falsely attained.

Falsely attained??? Do you have evidence to prove this or are you just making an uninformed guess to back a uninformed opinion?
 
i did and he was to be jailed without a trial. because the confession was falsely attained.

Prove it. You keep running your mouth, prove it.
 
But they settled. If the case was that weak, then Polanski could have forced the trial knowing he was going to walk. Instead, he not only broke the law by having sex with a 13-year-old, he broke the law again by fleeing the country.

a trial would have gone through the courts. and since Americans make everyone guilty in their minds it was best to avoid court. the people in your country make the guilty or not guilty pay whether there was a crime or not. the people make up their mind and there is no such thing as a fair trial in the US. the system is against fairness.
 
a trial would have gone through the courts. and since Americans make everyone guilty in their minds it was best to avoid court. the people in your country make the guilty or not guilty pay whether there was a crime or not. the people make up their mind and there is no such thing as a fair trial in the US. the system is against fairness.

Got proof?
 
a trial would have gone through the courts. and since Americans make everyone guilty in their minds it was best to avoid court. the people in your country make the guilty or not guilty pay whether there was a crime or not. the people make up their mind and there is no such thing as a fair trial in the US. the system is against fairness.

So in other words it is OK for people who rape, kill or murder to run away because people may think they are guilty before hand? :lol:

I hope that kind of justice system works for ya. :cool:
 
Prove it. You keep running your mouth, prove it.

i did. it has been posted several times. i think you just don't like people telling it like it is.

there was a deal it was taken back by the judge so Polanski was stuck.

it is pointless to debate this with most Americans because you buy into the lies of your courts. if you think it is acceptable to make deals in court what could you people possibly know about justice. really now you can't expect legal blindness such as it is in the US to be changed in a single online debate. your courts are a hotbed of criminal deals. you like it. well good luck with that.
 
Falsely attained??? Do you have evidence to prove this or are you just making an uninformed guess to back a uninformed opinion?

It seems to me that denying that Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl is like denying the holocaust. Sure, you can. But there's a lot of evidence to the contrary. Denying it just clues in others to one's intellectual level.
 
i did. it has been posted several times. i think you just don't like people telling it like it is.

there was a deal it was taken back by the judge so Polanski was stuck.

it is pointless to debate this with most Americans because you buy into the lies of your courts. if you think it is acceptable to make deals in court what could you people possibly know about justice. really now you can't expect legal blindness such as it is in the US to be changed in a single online debate. your courts are a hotbed of criminal deals. you like it. well good luck with that.

Post it again, I missed it. Or quote your link.
 
Back
Top Bottom