• 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
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.

but when he made that deal there would be no trial and he was not going to be given the terms of the deal so your courts suck because your judges lie.
 
Please explain something to me: what motivates you to defend some one who almost certainly molested a 13 year old girl? I just cannot understand that.
 
I used to live in the US. i never realized just how anal Americans can get over silly ****.
this really is silly stuff.

when the woman wants to drop all this why the big deal. what are you all trying to prove?

he fled because the deal he made was not going to be honored by a judge that broke his word. If you made a deal to buy a car for 20000 and then the manager says when it is time to write the check, i changed my mind it is 32000 would you stay around to honor your deal by paying 12000 more. it is the same thing. exactly the same thing. would you give up the extra 12000? according to this you would do just that.

Judges do not make deals. Prosecuting attourney's make the deals. The judge may or may not accept the deal. That is their perogative as judge. The attourneys know this and no doubt informed Polanski of this as is required of them to by law.
 
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.

No it is not silly. As I stated earlier in this thread by fleeing and evading capture for so long not continueing on with sentencing him and putting him in prison would just encourage other criminals to do the same. And not all criminals would not be as nice as this guy and not commit crimes anymore.

If you commit a crime you will be caught, you will be punished. Even if it takes decades to do so.
 
Judges do not make deals. Prosecuting attourney's make the deals. The judge may or may not accept the deal. That is their perogative as judge. The attourneys know this and no doubt informed Polanski of this as is required of them to by law.

the judge made the deal throught the attorney's as is always done. when Polanski signed off on it the judge changed his mind and was going for a stiff sentence. that is bull**** the judge was wrong. deals are wrong your courts in the Us suck. there should be no deals. Polanski left not because of the crime. he left because they changed the original deal. if the court is now going to honor that deal that is fine. if they are not he deserves a trial and the woman who is the states witness will not testify she wants this over and has said so for years. so what is the point of the circle jerk with your courts. why this? why now? it makes zero sense to me. 32 years ago it must have mattered. since i was only 7 it did not mean anything than.
 
the judge made the deal throught the attorney's as is always done. when Polanski signed off on it the judge changed his mind and was going for a stiff sentence. that is bull**** the judge was wrong. deals are wrong your courts in the Us suck. there should be no deals. Polanski left not because of the crime. he left because they changed the original deal. if the court is now going to honor that deal that is fine. if they are not he deserves a trial and the woman who is the states witness will not testify she wants this over and has said so for years. so what is the point of the circle jerk with your courts. why this? why now? it makes zero sense to me. 32 years ago it must have mattered. since i was only 7 it did not mean anything than.


The deal was a travesty. What was it, 42 days, or some such? I don't know, I've heard there are questions about the judge and the prosecution, but they don't wipe the slate clean for the old perv.
 
No it is not silly. As I stated earlier in this thread by fleeing and evading capture for so long not continueing on with sentencing him and putting him in prison would just encourage other criminals to do the same. And not all criminals would not be as nice as this guy and not commit crimes anymore.

If you commit a crime you will be caught, you will be punished. Even if it takes decades to do so.

why do people fail to see that Polanski did as he did with a promise from a judge. after Polanski did the deal the Judge quickly withdrew the deal?

why under that set of lies and court deceit should Polanski go to jail. because of that there was no trial.
 
The deal was a travesty. What was it, 42 days, or some such? I don't know, I've heard there are questions about the judge and the prosecution, but they don't wipe the slate clean for the old perv.

i understand that the deal was not what it should have been. you do not withdraw it after the sides had agreed and Polanski than confessed and now he is without trial to be sentenced on a lie from a judge. the no trial is unfair.
 
Please explain something to me: what motivates you to defend some one who almost certainly molested a 13 year old girl? I just cannot understand that.

Its not a matter of "defending"....its about doing what is right.

The plea agreement should have been honored 30 years ago. If it had, he would have been off probation 25 years ago. The man has stayed out of trouble...that is what probation is intended to do....keep someone on the straight and narrow. He has done that.

If you see the need for additional sanctions. Give him the original deal...Time served and 5 years probation.
 
i understand that the deal was not what it should have been. you do not withdraw it after the sides had agreed and Polanski than confessed and now he is without trial to be sentenced on a lie from a judge. the no trial is unfair.

I think he has a standing guilty plea for which he fled from sentencing, so there's an add'l charge now too.


I just can't work up a spec of sympathy for this guy.
 
The deal was a travesty. What was it, 42 days, or some such? I don't know, I've heard there are questions about the judge and the prosecution, but they don't wipe the slate clean for the old perv.

The deal wasn't a "travesty"...it was based on the judgement of the DA who felt that the girl and her mother was less than credible witnesses.

It had to do with other witnesses who gave statements that the girl looked much older than 13 and carried herself as older....it has to do with the Prosecutor having problems with lack of proof and a weak case that likely would have caused problems securing a conviction.

This is why cases plea bargain for deals such as this. The prosecution knowing that if they go to trial, they may not get a conviction and a defendant not wanting to take any risk. Thats how the system works.
 
I think he has a standing guilty plea for which he fled from sentencing, so there's an add'l charge now too.


I just can't work up a spec of sympathy for this guy.

Its not about sympathy...its about what is true justice. The system is based on retribution and rehabilitation. If someone has remained crime free for 30 years, the rehabiliation side has been served. At what point is retribution enough? The original deal was for a time served sentence. There is a good argument that retribution has already been fulfilled as well. That is what this debate is about.
 
I think he has a standing guilty plea for which he fled from sentencing, so there's an add'l charge now too.


I just can't work up a spec of sympathy for this guy.

his sentence was to be over by now. they took away the deal and were going to give him decades in prison. that is not right. he made that plea of guilty only because of the deal. for no other reason. when there was know deal the plea should have been tossed. but the American courts were out to fry him. they don't honor the deal that got the plea. do you understand that. the guilty plea was only because of the deal. then you take away the deal. that is bull****. he may be guilty it still is not the way a court should act. he was lied to for the plea that's it.

so what you want to do is send a man to prison without a trial that is super fair.
 
the judge made the deal throught the attorney's as is always done. when Polanski signed off on it the judge changed his mind and was going for a stiff sentence. that is bull**** the judge was wrong. deals are wrong your courts in the Us suck. there should be no deals. Polanski left not because of the crime. he left because they changed the original deal. if the court is now going to honor that deal that is fine. if they are not he deserves a trial and the woman who is the states witness will not testify she wants this over and has said so for years. so what is the point of the circle jerk with your courts. why this? why now? it makes zero sense to me. 32 years ago it must have mattered. since i was only 7 it did not mean anything than.

The prosecuting attourney may make any deal that they want and have the defendent sign off of it...all before the judge is even aware of any deal being made. So the deal can be made, with the defendent signing off on it but the judge still does not have to accept the deal.

The prosecuting attourneys did not change the deal. The judge rejected the deal. It's that simple. It is not the judges fault. It is his fault for thinking that the judge would agree to the deal no matter what.
 
why do people fail to see that Polanski did as he did with a promise from a judge. after Polanski did the deal the Judge quickly withdrew the deal?

why under that set of lies and court deceit should Polanski go to jail. because of that there was no trial.

You are too stuck on "the deal". As I have stated earlier the judge does not make deals. The only thing a judge has to do with plea bargaining is accepting it or denying it. And that is not done until sentencing. There was no deceit. There was only misunderstanding on Polanski's part. That misunderstanding is that he thought that the judge had to accept the deal.
 
Its not a matter of "defending"....its about doing what is right.

The plea agreement should have been honored 30 years ago. If it had, he would have been off probation 25 years ago. The man has stayed out of trouble...that is what probation is intended to do....keep someone on the straight and narrow. He has done that.

If you see the need for additional sanctions. Give him the original deal...Time served and 5 years probation.

What is right is seeing a legal process through. Polanski did not do this, and chose to take the cowardly way out to avoid the repercussions from his actions. So explain again why she is defending this guy.
 
The prosecuting attourney may make any deal that they want and have the defendent sign off of it...all before the judge is even aware of any deal being made. So the deal can be made, with the defendent signing off on it but the judge still does not have to accept the deal.

The prosecuting attourneys did not change the deal. The judge rejected the deal. It's that simple. It is not the judges fault. It is his fault for thinking that the judge would agree to the deal no matter what.

no the judge had agreed to the deal that is the catch. once the deal was made the judge said no and he got Polanski without a trial and the lying judge was going to fry him these deals in your court system are bull****.
 
You are too stuck on "the deal". As I have stated earlier the judge does not make deals. The only thing a judge has to do with plea bargaining is accepting it or denying it. And that is not done until sentencing. There was no deceit. There was only misunderstanding on Polanski's part. That misunderstanding is that he thought that the judge had to accept the deal.

i am not your courts are corrupt and filled with lying and cheating judges that screwed Polanski. THE JUDGE SAID YES TO THE DEAL. what is it that you do not understand about that.
 
What is right is seeing a legal process through. Polanski did not do this, and chose to take the cowardly way out to avoid the repercussions from his actions. So explain again why she is defending this guy.

you may want to move to a country where the legal process is actually fair. then you could actually see it through. as long as you live there you can forget fair.
 
I think he commited a very serious crime. This was rape of a child. I have a 13 year old daughter, she is still very innocent.
 
you may want to move to a country where the legal process is actually fair. then you could actually see it through. as long as you live there you can forget fair.

Interestingly, I do not know a single person who has had a problem with the legal system being unfair. It's funny how often thieves and murderers and child molesters complain that it is though...
 
Interestingly, I do not know a single person who has had a problem with the legal system being unfair. It's funny how often thieves and murderers and child molesters complain that it is though...

i will report that as that is directed at me. so thank you. the insinuation is that since i see your courts as unfair i am those. for this post on almost any forum you would be banned and you should be. i will know the type of board this is by their action.
 
Last edited:
-- Do you think Polanski should be punished for his crime? (Note: I'm not asking if you think the Swiss should extradite him, as that's a completely separate issue. I'm just asking if he should be punished from a criminal justice perspective.)

Yes he should, even though his case is 30+ years old we would probably all agree that the priests who molested kids even further back be prosecuted. Fame and wealth shouldn't protect anyone from justice.

As for the victim's wish to move on - there are few cases where the victims wish is upheld - and it certainly isn't in rape cases. I also don't see how letting him off would mean "closure" for her. We'll all still know about it.

I've noted that Time magazine claims this is an issue that separates those of us on either side of the pond - however I'd point out several famous celebrities in the UK who were eventually found out for their abuse of children - Gary Glitter and Jonathon King for starters.

I'm hoping the US follows suit.
 
i am not your courts are corrupt and filled with lying and cheating judges that screwed Polanski. THE JUDGE SAID YES TO THE DEAL. what is it that you do not understand about that.

And just who said that the judge said yes to the deal? Let me guess you got that from the documentary film "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired"? Was the judge on that documentary?

From the way that I understand it the judge had "suggested" to his lawyers (Polanski's lawyers) that he should do more time. This does not mean that the judge was going to give him more time or wasn't going to hold up the deal. A point of fact that we will never know what would have actually happened had Polanski gone to the sentencing trial. We will never know because he didn't go. Instead he ran. He ran based on what? An opinion? Because until Polanski had been sentenced that's all that it was. An opinion.

You say that the judge in question was corrupt and wasn't going to keep his word. Yet you do not know weather he wasn't going to hold up to the deal or if he was going to keep to it. You do know that people can do things despite their personal opinion right?

For example: I personally hate the very thought of killing someone. Yet I would if it meant protecting my family.

And I'm sure that judges do this more than anyone else.
 
i will report that as that is directed at me. so thank you. the insinuation is that since i see your courts as unfair i am those. for this post on almost any forum you would be banned and you should be. i will know the type of board this is by their action.

I don't think that it was directed at you in particular. At least not the part that I am assuming that you are upset about. I think that it was just a continuing thought from the first part of what he said. As it is well known that criminals do often claim to be "innocent" and that the court system is unfair. So while he may not know anyone personally that has claimed the court system is unfair he does know that criminals often claim that it is.
 
Back
Top Bottom