So let me understand your convoluted logic here: Polanski was justified fleeing our justice system because even thought he was filthy rich, could afford the best lawyers and felt that even with that level of representation, they still were too incompetent to keep him from serving time and therefore, being innocent and such and given the “illegal” actions of the Judge, he had no choice but to flee this despotic nation and its attempts to illegally punish him for something so mundane as having “consensual” sex with a 13 year old.
Does this summarize your argument?
The fascinating part of this level of denial and spin is the assertion that the Judge acted improperly and as such, Polanski being the rich over-represented person that he is, had no other legal recourse but to flee justice.
:rofl
No...it doesn't summarize it at all. Typical of most of your posts, deflector, it mischaracterizes and distorts.
Nowhere did I say that Polanski was "justified" (once again your mischaracterizations and distortion)
Nowhere did I say that the actions of the judge were "illegal" (once again your mischaracterizations and distortion)
Nowhere did I say that having sex with a minor is "mundane" (Once again your mischaracterizations and distortion).
However, as typical of many debates, several people have the facts wrong. If this were a case about a pedaphile who lured a 13 year old into his house raped her and then fled to avoid punishment, they might have a point. That, however is a mischaracterization of the facts.
I am not condoning Polanski's underlying actions or his fleeing the country. However, one cannot pick and choose what parts of the circumstances you want to support your arguments and fail to address the others.
The bottom line is that the DA did not find the story of the girl and her mother credible. Rightfully so, because she later recanted major parts of it.
The DA understood the lack of credibility as well as other weaknesses in their case which is why the case settled for what it did.
The actions of the judge failed to take into account the weakness of the DA's case. Responding to personal vendetta or political pressure or whatever, the judge took the plea and then reneged on the deal. Yes...a judge can refuse to take a deal, however, usually where this is done it is because of a person's rap sheet or because of additional information that the judge becomes aware of. A judge does not have the same information that the DA/Defense have regarding the facts of the case.
I hate to say it, but if I were Polanski, I would have fled as well.
That said...I have never said that Polanski should not be punished. He should be punished in accord with the original deal. As I stated before there are two interests which a criminal penalty are intended to serve....rehabilitation and retribution. The fact that Polanski has gone 30 years crime free would support a belief that rehabilitation has already been served. What about retribution. The original plea was for a time served sentence. The plea was based on the strength of the case and information known to the DA. Why should retribution carry a higher price than that which justice demands?
