• 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
youve gotta atleast givim some credit for staying outta jail for 30 years. i mean thats gotta be a record or somthin

Thats one of the realities. The original deal was for essentially time served and probation. Probation means staying out of trouble. He basically has done that for 30 years.
 
Did he run away instead of facing the outcome of his crime? Then he is a coward.

he ran away because he was lied too. not his crime. he left because they changed the sentence aftre the fact. do you not understand this. what is so difficult to understand.

i am not condoning rape. not at all. if he did this he should have been locked up at the time. the courts messed up badly and they make deals with people they should not if he was so horrible. how are your courts fair someone please tell me.
 
I voted "other". I don't know if he should be punished or not. That is for the court to decide. But I do think he should face his day in court and I believe he was a coward to have left the country.

No I don't think the victim's opinion is terribly relevant. We are trying to deter people who think they are above the law from doing bad things to today's children. If it was your daughter....?

I tested myself for neutrality by substituting Polanski for Dick Cheney in this scenario and that clinched it for me.

he is not a coward. he fled not the crime but the change of sentence that he bargained for. that is why he left.
 
Wrong again. He was willing to accept the terms of his plea. The Judge reneged and wouldn't accept the deal the prosecutor worked out.

The judge wanted a multiple year state prison sentence. The DA knew their case was weak and based their plea agreement on the facts that were proveable.

Thats what caused Polanski to flee

That is within the judges rights. The judge has to approve any plea bargain as I understand it.
 
he plead guilty to a deal that was changed and he did not stay. he would not have done that had the deal been honored. he would not have said he was guilty if there was no deal.

What you are missing is that no one is saying Polanski should be punished MORE than what he bargained for. He pleaded guilty to molesting a 13-year-old girl. He is a convicted child molester. He should face the consequences.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. Get your facts straight. It wasn't forcible rape. It was stat rape and the sentence he was to receive was lenient based on problems that the Prosecutor had with proof. The judge reneged on the deal which is what caused Polanski to flee.

I'm not condoning the fleeing or the stat rape, however, there were considerable questions underlying the conduct of the girl and her mother and whether Polanski was aware of her age.

The bottom line...there is a lot of misinformation out there and this post is another example of it.

Wrong. You get your facts straight. He brutally raped a child. The Smoking Gun: Archive And a warning, this includes testimony from her, so of course it is disturbing, to say the least. And even if she consented (which she didn't), she was THIRTEEN YEARS OLD. THIRTEEN!! No where near old enough to make such a decision with a GROWN MAN.
 
Last edited:
maybe 30 years ago if he were actually guilty. but since the judge got the confession falsely that may not even be so.

What do you mean it "may not even be so"? He pleaded GUILTY to sexually molesting a 13-year-old. The circumstances surrounding his plea bargain do not change that fact. Whether he had a deal that he would get a lighter sentence by pleading guilty does not change the fact that he pleaded guilty. Why in the world would you think he was innocent? Do you presume everyone to be innocent, if they agree to plead guilty through a plea bargain?
 
Last edited:
That is within the judges rights. The judge has to approve any plea bargain as I understand it.

he did. then he changed his mind. there should be no such thing as a bargain. if someone breaks the law do the time this is not let's make a deal. this is a court. this was done and he was lied to or he would never have confessed to anything.
 
yea im pretty sure we can all agree at least that the rape did take place. how 'brutal' it was we can argue
 
he did. then he changed his mind. there should be no such thing as a bargain. if someone breaks the law do the time this is not let's make a deal. this is a court. this was done and he was lied to or he would never have confessed to anything.

Did the judge break the law? Did Polanski? Why are you vilifying the judge and praising Polanski?
 
he did. then he changed his mind. there should be no such thing as a bargain. if someone breaks the law do the time this is not let's make a deal. this is a court. this was done and he was lied to or he would never have confessed to anything.

That makes no goddamn sense. He would not have pleaded guilty unless he thought there was a reasonable possibility that the prosecutor could get a conviction for a more severe crime. No rational person does that.
 
That is within the judges rights. The judge has to approve any plea bargain as I understand it.

True...but it is extremely rare for a judge not to approve the plea bargain. That happens once in a blue moon.

In this case, the Judge indicated that he wanted a lengthy prison sentence. The problem with judges doing this is, Judges don't have the facts of the case. They don't have the police reports or the witness interviews. All they have are the charges and any rap sheet.
For a judge to take a sentence that was agreed to and change it so drastically is not only extremely rare...it is unprecedented. The judge was obviously responding to political pressures and should have let the DA and the Defense who understood the weaknesses in the DA's case work out the deal.
 
What you are missing is that no one is saying Polanski should be punished MORE than what he bargained for. He pleaded GUILTY to molesting a 13-year-old girl. He is a convicted child molester. He should face the consequences.

the consequences are time serve and he had to be good. that was the deal. so why all the fuss and why am i the bad person that gets all the fingers pointed at me. this is over why are the US courts doing this. do they have nothing better to do.

No they want to change the deal Roman signed on for don't they. well that is wrong. if he is guilty fine. but honor the agreement that was given him.

why do your courts make deals anyway? seems silly to make deals with law breakers.

why hasn't anyone chimed in about how Kennedy Jackson Simpson all got away with whatever because of money. what the US needs a donation from Polanski to keep you a float. maybe they figure he is flush now because he was getting an award. so this is as good a time as any. why didn't you just send guys to roll him in an alley and take his wallet to help your economy.
 
What do you mean it "may not even be so"? He pleaded GUILTY to sexually molesting a 13-year-old. The circumstances surrounding his plea bargain do not change that fact. Whether he had a deal that he would get a lighter sentence by pleading guilty does not change the fact that he pleaded guilty. Why in the world would you think he was innocent? Do you presume everyone to be innocent, if they agree to plead guilty through a plea bargain?

he plead guilty under false pretentious to be done with it. and then your court tried to screw him so he left.
 
What you are missing is that no one is saying Polanski should be punished MORE than what he bargained for. He pleaded guilty to molesting a 13-year-old girl. He is a convicted child molester. He should face the consequences.

no i consider them guilty when they are proven so in a court of law. is that not the law of your land?
 
Wrong. You get your facts straight. He brutally raped a child. The Smoking Gun: Archive And a warning, this includes testimony from her, so of course it is disturbing, to say the least. And even if she consented (which she didn't), she was THIRTEEN YEARS OLD. THIRTEEN!! No where near old enough to make such a decision with a GROWN MAN.

The Smoking gun? Are you serious?

Wrong. The DA found her testimony and statements to the police less than credible. She later recanted her statements.
 
I find the judges actions in the case to be terrible. Acting under outside pressure to screw with the plea system struck a major blow to the credibility of our system.

However, Polanski refused to play by the rules. He should have appealed, not abandon justice all together and flee. I would consider it appropriate if he got the terms he originally bargained for, especially considering the victims wishes. Still, he needs to face punishment for trying to escape justice. It needs to be made clear that running is not an acceptable solution to a criminal charge.
 
The Smoking gun? Are you serious?

Wrong. The DA found her testimony and statements to the police less than credible. She later recanted her statements.

she recanted them years ago. this is not new. she forgave him for whatever happened and said she did not want him jailed. she shaid the matter was destroying her life. but in the pursuit of justice the system doesn't care who it tramples.
 
the consequences are time serve and he had to be good. that was the deal. so why all the fuss

Because he skipped the country before he was sentenced.

katiegrrl0 said:
No they want to change the deal Roman signed on for don't they. well that is wrong. if he is guilty fine. but honor the agreement that was given him.

I agree. Very few people in this thread have argued otherwise.

katiegrrl0 said:
why do your courts make deals anyway? seems silly to make deals with law breakers.

It saves time and money. There is no need for the prosecution to spend a huge amount of taxpayer money, and risk getting no conviction at all, if he can get the defendant to agree to plead guilty to a lesser crime.

katiegrrl0 said:
why hasn't anyone chimed in about how Kennedy Jackson Simpson all got away with whatever because of money. what the US needs a donation from Polanski to keep you a float. maybe they figure he is flush now because he was getting an award. so this is as good a time as any. why didn't you just send guys to roll him in an alley and take his wallet to help your economy.

:rofl
You are hilarious. Yep, they picked up Polanski to boost the American economy.
 
he plead guilty under false pretentious to be done with it.

Does that make him less guilty? Regardless of what deal he agreed to, HE PLEADED GUILTY.

katiegrrl0 said:
and then your court tried to screw him so he left.

And once again, no one is saying his plea bargain shouldn't be honored. How many times must I repeat this before it sinks in?
 
no i consider them guilty when they are proven so in a court of law. is that not the law of your land?

He pleaded guilty, which means he HAS been proven guilty in a court of law. In this country, that's how courts operate. There is no trial if the defendant pleads guilty.
 
I find the judges actions in the case to be terrible. Acting under outside pressure to screw with the plea system struck a major blow to the credibility of our system.

However, Polanski refused to play by the rules. He should have appealed, not abandon justice all together and flee. I would consider it appropriate if he got the terms he originally bargained for, especially considering the victims wishes. Still, he needs to face punishment for trying to escape justice. It needs to be made clear that running is not an acceptable solution to a criminal charge.

if he got the terms of the original agreement then i would be well satisfied. my objection to this entire thing is that he was lied and cheated to and then expected to act other than he did. why would he have thought he would get a fair deal on appeal. Polanski is not an American citizen anyway as far as I know. he never was.

if he was treated unfairly once why would he think it any better a second time. if they bring him to a court and say that he has served his time now he can go that is what should be done.

if he did as was suggested by so many posters why would the courts make a deal with him anyway?
 
Because he skipped the country before he was sentenced.



I agree. Very few people in this thread have argued otherwise.



It saves time and money. There is no need for the prosecution to spend a huge amount of taxpayer money, and risk getting no conviction at all, if he can get the defendant to agree to plead guilty to a lesser crime.



:rofl
You are hilarious. Yep, they picked up Polanski to boost the American economy.

hey i had to make a joke somewhere.
 
Does that make him less guilty? Regardless of what deal he agreed to, HE PLEADED GUILTY.



And once again, no one is saying his plea bargain shouldn't be honored. How many times must I repeat this before it sinks in?

it makes him not guilty until he receives a fair trial. think of this if he was such a beast why were your courts trying to make a deal with him. forgive me for thinking that wrong headed.

well these lasts few posts have made your positions clear. people have been saying he will get a trial and throw the book at him. the poor fellow made a deal. why even bother to bring him in. honor the deal and make him an exile. tell him he can't come back to the US. it is silly to go through all this expense over nothing.
 
Back
Top Bottom