• 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
Badfish420 said:
DeeJayH you better stop acting so morally superior. your little graphic is so offensive you have NO right to say **** about anyone
Click to expand...

apparently you are just a hyperpartisan hack as you are spouting BS with no merit in defense of a pedophile supporter

my graphic is offensive only to the most ignorant of fools. nice to see you joined the ever expanding club
 
everyone whos not a racist is a fool i guess
 
paris said:
And I personally think people who want to make an example of this 30 yo case are sexually repressed.

It is a bit like your movie rating system. No problem if there is violence in a film, but god forbid any nudity:spin:
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? This isn't about stupid censorship laws. The man drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. He plead guilty. He ran to another country when he was supposed to be sentenced. How can you say anything to the contrary or pretend this isn't a significant crime? There are a large number of laws I don't agree with. There are many powers the authority wields which I believe are not proper. Yet in this specific case, the facts are clear. He drugged and raped a 13 year old child. If you can't understand the problem with that, I'm not sure there's anything I can tell you. But it's a serious crime. It's not defensible. And to be honest, it's downright sick to compare drugging and raping a 13 year old child with nudity on TV.
 
paris said:
And I personally think people who want to make an example of this 30 yo case are sexually repressed.

It is a bit like your movie rating system. No problem if there is violence in a film, but god forbid any nudity:spin:
Click to expand...

Sexually repressed because we find the rape of a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD CHILD to be repugnant and worthy of punishment, no matter how long ago it was? :shock:
 
Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Judge DID accept the deal....that's what people here don't understand.

Its called a 90 day diagnostic. What that means is that the person goes to state prison for 90 days and is observed and interviewed by psychologists. They come back with a recommendation for either state prison or probation.

The judge accepted that deal. However, when the diagnostic came back probation and not state prison, the judge said I'm not going to follow it.

That is virtually underheard of and not the type of situation where there is a plea agreement and the judge doesn't go along with it.
The judge reneged on the deal he agreed to when the recommendation didn't come back with what the judge wanted.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
People should read the testimony of the victim in this case if they doubt Polanski's guilt.

The Smoking Gun: Archive



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?
Click to expand...

Sorry Catz....but this testimony was later recanted by her. The prosecution didn't believe it after hearing the testimony. They found her and her mother not credible and there were substantial contradictions in their testimony.

This is why the prosecution gave a greatly reduced charge.
 
Roman Polanski drugged and then raped a 14 year old girl. I do not care how old he is now, how many years it has been, or whether or not he has changed. Let me say this again - He drugged and then raped a 14 year old girl. To allow him to go free does not serve any kind of justice. He did the crime, and he must pay for his actions by suffering the consequences of those actions. Otherwise, there will be no justice.

NOTE: My only regret is that he will not be serving his sentence in Texas.
 
Last edited:
The problem though Dana is what part of the story do you want to believe. She told one story....major parts were contradicted by her mother. The prosecutor found them both to be less than credible.

Yet there is a lynch mob here that want to hang him for things that have been recanted, disproven and otherwise rejected.

I'm not condoning what he may have done. But our system of justice relies in large part on the discretion and judgement of the prosecutor. If a prosecutor doesn't think they have the facts to prove the case, they offer a reduced charge. That is what happened here.
 
Can you still marry a 14yrs old with parental consent in South Carolina, if so is the groom a state sanctioned pedophile?
 
paris said:
His teenage daughter used to attend the same school as my teenage sister and brother in Paris and Polanski would often come and pick her up after school. None of them has ever been afraid of being raped by that man.

Of course, none of us has ever tried to set him up either!
Click to expand...

Oh, so the fact that you don't think he's a bad guy means that he should be able to forcibly rape children and flee the country with impunity. Great point!

disneydude said:
The Judge DID accept the deal....that's what people here don't understand.

Its called a 90 day diagnostic. What that means is that the person goes to state prison for 90 days and is observed and interviewed by psychologists. They come back with a recommendation for either state prison or probation.

The judge accepted that deal. However, when the diagnostic came back probation and not state prison, the judge said I'm not going to follow it.

That is virtually underheard of and not the type of situation where there is a plea agreement and the judge doesn't go along with it.
The judge reneged on the deal he agreed to when the recommendation didn't come back with what the judge wanted.
Click to expand...

No, it's not "virtually unheard of." It happens with regularity where the judge feels that the plea bargain is inappropriate. Furthermore, even if it were absolutely absurd, that doesn't excuse the fact that he fled the country. If you don't like something, you fight it in court. You don't get to flee.
 
It is amazing just how little people that say what the judge did (or didn't do since we'll never know what he was going to actually do since Polanski ran before the sentencing) was wrong know how our court system actually works and has worked for the past 200+ years.
 
RightinNYC said:
Oh, so the fact that you don't think he's a bad guy means that he should be able to forcibly rape children and flee the country with impunity. Great point!
Click to expand...

Oh, so you too have reading comprehension troubles. Great!

Thus let me post a video for you. It is the first part of an interesting doc, titled Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, by Marina Zenovich.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px9WxqYe8VY"]YouTube - Roman Polanski #1[/ame]

The nine other parts are also available on YouTube, let's just hope you are able to figure out how to view them all:)
 
RightinNYC said:
Oh, so the fact that you don't think he's a bad guy means that he should be able to forcibly rape children and flee the country with impunity. Great point!



No, it's not "virtually unheard of." It happens with regularity where the judge feels that the plea bargain is inappropriate. Furthermore, even if it were absolutely absurd, that doesn't excuse the fact that he fled the country. If you don't like something, you fight it in court. You don't get to flee.
Click to expand...

Right you are wrong.

It is virtually unheard of. People are mistaking the judges actions here with a judges actions in refusing to go along with a plea bargain. They are completely different scenarios.

It happens with some degree of regularity that a Da/Defense will discuss a plea bargain and the judge will refuse to accept it. This usually happens where the defendant has a long rap sheet or additional information becomes known that makes the judge uncomfortable. That is NOT what happened here.

What happened here is that the DA/Defense entered into a deal for a 90 day diagnostic. In that type of plea bargain, both side agree to have the defendant go to state prison for 90 days. The diagnostic team then makes a decision whether the defendant is appropriate for probation or whether state prison is the appropriate sanction.
The Judge AGREED to this plea bargain. Polanski went for the diagnostic. The psychiatric diagnostic team came back and said he was appropriate for probation. It was at THIS point that the Judge said he wasn't going to follow the diagnostic.

Can you now see the difference between the two scenarios?

Let me break it down more:

Scenario #1: DA and Defense review the facts and decide 5 year state prison is the sentence. They tell Judge. Judge says no. This defendant has been in and out of prison and the crime here is too severe. I'm not accepting that plea. I won't accept a deal for less than ten years.

Scenario #2: DA and Defense review the facts and decide 5 years state prison is the sentence. They tell Judge. Judge says fine I'll accept that. Defendant pleads. Judge says....you know what....I've changed my mind, I don't think 5 years is an appropriate sentence. I'm sentencing you to 20 years.

This case is more like #2 than #1. #1 does happen with some regularity but is still not very common. #2 is unprecedented.

The Judge had agreed with the plea bargain. It wasn't until the Judge didn't like the outcome that he reneged on the deal.
 
Last edited:
Am watching those videos now. I just thought that I should note that so far it's been quite biased. It has done it's best to show Polanski as a victim. While showing the judge as a womanizer and a scoundrel just because he liked to take on celebrity cases..even mentioning some type of scrapbook the judge kept like some kid of trophy.
 
Well made it through the part 4. And thats about as much as I can stomach. From what I can tell it is just about trying to make Polanski look good and the Judge look bad.

Facts are that he raped a 14 yr old girl. Gave what is considered a date rape drug to a 14 yr old girl. He confessed to it. He should be in jail for it.
 
disneydude said:
Let me break it down more:

Scenario #1: DA and Defense review the facts and decide 5 year state prison is the sentence. They tell Judge. Judge says no. This defendant has been in and out of prison and the crime here is too severe. I'm not accepting that plea. I won't accept a deal for less than ten years.

Scenario #2: DA and Defense review the facts and decide 5 years state prison is the sentence. They tell Judge. Judge says fine I'll accept that. Defendant pleads. Judge says....you know what....I've changed my mind, I don't think 5 years is an appropriate sentence. I'm sentencing you to 20 years.

This case is more like #2 than #1. #1 does happen with some regularity but is still not very common. #2 is unprecedented.

The Judge had agreed with the plea bargain. It wasn't until the Judge didn't like the outcome that he reneged on the deal.
Click to expand...

How do you know he reneged on the deal? Polanski ran away before the sentencing trial.

All that happened is the judge suggested that Polanski should get more time to Polanski's lawyer. Suggesting and actually doing are two different things. We will never know weather or not the judge was going to keep to the plea bargain or not...because Polanski ran away before the sentencing trial.
 
That is correct; it was a conversation, not an actual act, and it was with Polanski's attorneys, not some shady deal with the DA.

They were competent attorneys. Even if it went down that Polanski got more of a sentence than the original deal, they had the whole appeals process to work through.

It still baffles me that some people want to make Polanksi out to be the victim here. It's simply astounding.
 
Harshaw said:
It still baffles me that some people want to make Polanksi out to be the victim here. It's simply astounding.
Click to expand...

Those who voted 'No' are excusing pedophilia in my eyes.

He can be as rich, cultured or famous as he wants but that will never excuse the fact the dirty bastard had sex with a 13 year old girl.

Maybe if the coward didn't run for it. He would have been out of jail by now.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
How do you know he reneged on the deal? Polanski ran away before the sentencing trial.

All that happened is the judge suggested that Polanski should get more time to Polanski's lawyer. Suggesting and actually doing are two different things. We will never know weather or not the judge was going to keep to the plea bargain or not...because Polanski ran away before the sentencing trial.
Click to expand...

1/2 accurate, 1/2 not. True. Polanski fled and so we will never know for certain. However, the Judge did more than "suggest". He flat out told the DA and the defense attorney that he did not intend to follow the diagnostic finding and indicated that he believed a lengthy prison sentence was in order.
 
Harshaw said:
That is correct; it was a conversation, not an actual act, and it was with Polanski's attorneys, not some shady deal with the DA.

They were competent attorneys. Even if it went down that Polanski got more of a sentence than the original deal, they had the whole appeals process to work through.

It still baffles me that some people want to make Polanksi out to be the victim here. It's simply astounding.
Click to expand...

There is no appeals process. What are you talking about. You can't appeal a plea even where the judge reneges.

No one is making Polanski the victim. I don't condone what he may have done and he should be sentenced according to the original plea agreement before the judge reneged.
 
disneydude said:
No one is making Polanski the victim. I don't condone what he may have done and he should be sentenced according to the original plea agreement before the judge reneged.
Click to expand...

And of course, he has to be tried and sentenced for running as well.
 
disneydude said:
There is no appeals process. What are you talking about. You can't appeal a plea even where the judge reneges.
Click to expand...

That's only if the right to appeal is waived.
 
paris said:
Oh, so you too have reading comprehension troubles. Great!

Thus let me post a video for you. It is the first part of an interesting doc, titled Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, by Marina Zenovich.

YouTube - Roman Polanski #1

The nine other parts are also available on YouTube, let's just hope you are able to figure out how to view them all:)
Click to expand...

Sure, let me just watch an hour and a half of propaganda agitating on his behalf and get back to you.

disneydude said:
Right you are wrong.

It is virtually unheard of. People are mistaking the judges actions here with a judges actions in refusing to go along with a plea bargain. They are completely different scenarios.

...

The Judge had agreed with the plea bargain. It wasn't until the Judge didn't like the outcome that he reneged on the deal.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I believe that this is as uncommon as you're making it out to be. First, I believe it would be inappropriate for a judge to completely cede his sentencing authority to the psyche evaluation/probation team, who is generally as big a group of **** ups as you can find. What I bet happened is that he said he would let the 90 days play out and then take their recommendation under consideration.

And again, even if this is something that has never happened before on this planet, the proper thing to do is to let the process play out and then file the proper appeals.


Let me break it down more:

Scenario #1: DA and Defense review the facts and decide 5 year state prison is the sentence. They tell Judge. Judge says no. This defendant has been in and out of prison and the crime here is too severe. I'm not accepting that plea. I won't accept a deal for less than ten years.

Scenario #2: DA and Defense review the facts and decide 5 years state prison is the sentence. They tell Judge. Judge says fine I'll accept that. Defendant pleads. Judge says....you know what....I've changed my mind, I don't think 5 years is an appropriate sentence. I'm sentencing you to 20 years.

This case is more like #2 than #1. #1 does happen with some regularity but is still not very common. #2 is unprecedented.
Click to expand...

I know for a fact that #2 is not even remotely unprecedented - I watched a judge do it. Both sides came to an agreement, they signed a plea, all indications were that it was acceptable to the judge, and then during the process of allocution, the judge felt that the defendant was either not remorseful or was failing to accept responsibility and thus sentenced him to a longer term.

There's a very good reason why all plea agreements include language in bold reminding the defendant that the judge has authority to disregard the agreement.

disneydude said:
There is no appeals process. What are you talking about. You can't appeal a plea even where the judge reneges.

No one is making Polanski the victim. I don't condone what he may have done and he should be sentenced according to the original plea agreement before the judge reneged.
Click to expand...

Every plea deal I've ever seen included language waiving the right to appeal only if the judge eventually sentenced the defendant to a term of less than X months. I very much doubt the defense attorneys here included a total waiver of all rights to appeal. If they did, then if the judges actions were truly egregious, he could have sought appeal on those grounds, and if not, well, that's what you get for signing a total waiver.
 
paris said:
He did not come back.

He fled because he was afraid of your judicial system and I can understand him there.

He pleaded guilty to a crime he possibly did not commit because he was told to do so by his legal consellors.

Do you know how many years of study are required to become a judge? You are all here trying to judge him without knowing the case. The fact the alleged victim wants to burry it should be very telling.
Click to expand...

That's why I want to abolish the jury system. I don't know how it works in Europe, but Americans just plain suck at this sort of thing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom