• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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

mae

New member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
22
Reaction score
9
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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?
How do you know he has gone crime free? Because he hasn't been caught?
 

Dr_Patrick

Androgyne
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
9,349
Reaction score
3,947
Location
Montana
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is very funny; she doesn't need to testify. The case is done and he was already sentenced.

The ONLY thing that remains is a hearing on his new crime of fleeing justice and how much additional time will be tacked onto his original sentence.

:doh

I find it amusing watching those who defend such immoral and illegal conduct now try to spin this as an effort to hurt the innocent; you voted for Obama didn't you? :rofl
Just out of curiosity; what does supporting Roman Polanski have to do with voting for Obama? :confused:
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I don't understand the focus on the "effect" on the victim. Nothing I've seen indicates that she would have to testify or be involved at all.

We can completely ignore the actual rape and the penalties that would have resulted from that and instead remember that the guy fled the country to avoid serving a sentence. He should be extradited, prosecuted, and convicted for that alone.
 

Dr_Patrick

Androgyne
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
9,349
Reaction score
3,947
Location
Montana
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't understand the focus on the "effect" on the victim. Nothing I've seen indicates that she would have to testify or be involved at all.

We can completely ignore the actual rape and the penalties that would have resulted from that and instead remember that the guy fled the country to avoid serving a sentence. He should be extradited, prosecuted, and convicted for that alone.
From what I understood it wasn't even about testifying. She just wanted it to be over with so she could continue to move on from it. I was actually surprised that Switzerland detained him. I always thought they stayed out of these types of affairs.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I just don't understand why some people keep saying "a crime he might not have done" (or some such).

1: The guy is rich. Which means he could afford damn good lawyers. Ones that would have used every trick in the book to get him off the hook. (hey! that rhymes!)

2: If he hadn't really commited rape then he would not have accepted a plea bargain. No matter what. For the simple fact that there would have been NO evidence that it was true.

3: He did accept a plea bargain and confessed to the crime. No innocent person would do that. Especially a rich person for the simple fact that their reputations mean everything to them.

It also does not matter weather the judge changed his mind about accepting the plea bargain or not. That is his perogative as a judge. Fact is that Polanski ran away to avoid being sentenced. Even though he was guilty, by his own words.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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 think it's more an issue that separates the entire Anglosphere from continental Europe, rather than an issue that separates Americans from Europeans.
 

katiegrrl0

OWL Forever
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
4,172
Reaction score
1,960
Location
at the computer
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Socialist
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.
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.
 

Scorpion89

Banned
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
2,629
Reaction score
527
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
Whoo hold the **** on Missy, First off bring in Mr. W Bush into this discussion it's a Strawman and has nothing to do with said subject.

It's you who don't get it look the Scum pleade guilty and then skip the Country, what part of Calf. Penal Law don't you understand the Judge doesn't have to take the plead bargin that the DA and the Scum Lawyer came up with. The Judge has finally saying on sentancing after someone pleads guilty he/she can take the advice of the DA into consideration and 8 times out of 10 they will go with what the Plead Bargin/Deal is. Scum wasn't the first nor will he be the last that a judge didn't go with the DA Deal.

As far as the Girl that is the center of this case it really doesn't matter whaty she thinks because here in the USA there is no Statue of limitaion on Statury Rape and beside that is not what he was arrest for he was arrested for Fugitive from the Law Warrent that not only the AG of the United States Filed but Interpol also filed one.

Oh and neither the police nor the Courts drop the ball on this one the only thing I see that was dropped was this scum getting his passport back.

As for you being personally attack not even close so please drop the woho is me thing it's not very lady like of you. Beside I thought you were a Feminist that is what you have come across in many of your post so whay in the hell are you sticking up for this Scum of Humanity. Oh and most of his movie suck also.
 
Last edited:

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,258
Reaction score
51,122
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
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.
I don't think any one has insulted you yet, but with this post, that will probably change. There are some people very unhappy with Bush who disagree with you on this. There have been people critical of how the court handled this who disagree with you on this issue.

The gang rape comment in your post was just vile, offensive, and inaccurate. You should be ashamed of yourself for stooping to make it. This woman is not a victim of the courts, she is a victim of Roman Polanski, who you chose to defend.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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****.
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:
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
Funny...as far as I can tell no one has insulted you on purpose yet. If you take something as offensive then that is your problem. And in case you hadn't noticed but I sure as heck don't have 7k posts on this site either. The mods here are pretty fair from what I have seen.

As far as Bush goes yes I defended him when I saw it as necessary. But I also decried him when it was necessary. I consider Bush to be the biggest idiot that we've had for a President yet.

As far as the victim in this case goes you're somewhat right, I don't care about her. I do not know her so why would I care about her? However I do care in that what was done to her by Polanski was wrong. I also care about other possible victims of criminals that would get away because a precedent was set to just let someone go just because they evaded the law long enough.

BTW I had already googled Polanski and read up on him when I started reading and responding to this thread. I do my homework before talking about something that I initially have no idea about. You should do the same in regards to how our court and law system works if you are going to continue disparaging a system that you obviously have no clue about.

As for how bad our law system is I do agree that it is not the best in the world. But it certainly isn't the worst in the world either.
 

katiegrrl0

OWL Forever
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
4,172
Reaction score
1,960
Location
at the computer
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Socialist
I don't think any one has insulted you yet, but with this post, that will probably change. There are some people very unhappy with Bush who disagree with you on this. There have been people critical of how the court handled this who disagree with you on this issue.

The gang rape comment in your post was just vile, offensive, and inaccurate. You should be ashamed of yourself for stooping to make it. This woman is not a victim of the courts, she is a victim of Roman Polanski, who you chose to defend.
I would say that you did. you were the top offender. you may want to read back through your posts and see for yourself. i reported it but you have 8000+ posts to my few hundred so nothing will be done.
 

katiegrrl0

OWL Forever
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
4,172
Reaction score
1,960
Location
at the computer
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Socialist
Whoo hold the **** on Missy, First off bring in Mr. W Bush into this discussion it's a Strawman and has nothing to do with said subject.

It's you who don't get it look the Scum pleade guilty and then skip the Country, what part of Calf. Penal Law don't you understand the Judge doesn't have to take the plead bargin that the DA and the Scum Lawyer came up with. The Judge has finally saying on sentancing after someone pleads guilty he/she can take the advice of the DA into consideration and 8 times out of 10 they will go with what the Plead Bargin/Deal is. Scum wasn't the first nor will he be the last that a judge didn't go with the DA Deal.

As far as the Girl that is the center of this case it really doesn't matter whaty she thinks because here in the USA there is no Statue of limitaion on Statury Rape and beside that is not what he was arrest for he was arrested for Fugitive from the Law Warrent that not only the AG of the United States Filed but Interpol also filed one.

Oh and neither the police nor the Courts drop the ball on this one the only thing I see that was dropped was this scum getting his passport back.

As for you being personally attack not even close so please drop the woho is me thing it's not very lady like of you. Beside I thought you were a Feminist that is what you have come across in many of your post so whay in the hell are you sticking up for this Scum of Humanity. Oh and most of his movie suck also.
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.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,258
Reaction score
51,122
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I would say that you did. you were the top offender. you may want to read back through your posts and see for yourself. i reported it but you have 8000+ posts to my few hundred so nothing will be done.
If you can show me where I insulted you, I will apologize. I suspect you simply read into my comments though.
 

katiegrrl0

OWL Forever
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
4,172
Reaction score
1,960
Location
at the computer
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Socialist
Funny...as far as I can tell no one has insulted you on purpose yet. If you take something as offensive then that is your problem. And in case you hadn't noticed but I sure as heck don't have 7k posts on this site either. The mods here are pretty fair from what I have seen.

As far as Bush goes yes I defended him when I saw it as necessary. But I also decried him when it was necessary. I consider Bush to be the biggest idiot that we've had for a President yet.

As far as the victim in this case goes you're somewhat right, I don't care about her. I do not know her so why would I care about her? However I do care in that what was done to her by Polanski was wrong. I also care about other possible victims of criminals that would get away because a precedent was set to just let someone go just because they evaded the law long enough.

BTW I had already googled Polanski and read up on him when I started reading and responding to this thread. I do my homework before talking about something that I initially have no idea about. You should do the same in regards to how our court and law system works if you are going to continue disparaging a system that you obviously have no clue about.

As for how bad our law system is I do agree that it is not the best in the world. But it certainly isn't the worst in the world either.
the first question that does come to mind is why do your courts make deals with people they suspect of horrible crimes. if Polanski was so awful why do you even offer him a deal? is it court or is your system a TV show?
 

DeeJayH

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,728
Reaction score
1,688
Location
Scooping Zeus' Poop
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
so continue to punish her. this issue was 30 years ago. why bring it into her life again. he has not been in the US and there has been no repeat. he is 76 years old for Christ's sake. if the woman had not asked for this to be dropped than maybe you have a point. she has. done deal in my mind. no charges, no crime, no criminal, no time to be served.
so now the justice (if justice at all) is hurting the woman and this is a good thing in your mind? why?
she is all grown up and can deal with it better than if she was still a child.
time to grow up.

The judge from what i have seen did nothing wrong, but I only got this deep in the 20 pages so far.

I look forward to hearing about the old farts colon falling out after being gang raped in prison

and i do not give a **** that the 13 year old may have agreed, wanted it, was a willing participant or anything else

She was 13 = RAPE
 

DeeJayH

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,728
Reaction score
1,688
Location
Scooping Zeus' Poop
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
I am sorry, but I do not see where you make the case that what the judge did was illegal or not allowed. As far as this L&O:CI guy knows, A judge does not have to accept the plea. And last time I was in court (misdemeanor) my attorney informed me that just because we arranged a deal with a plea, does not mean the judge can not impose a harsher sentence than agreed to

if it is allowed, Polanski owes us that sentence
 

First Thought

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
6,218
Reaction score
1,859
Location
DFW, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I get a kick out of your abuse of the term "partisan" and continued avoidance of facts and questions addressed to you.

By the way, do you even comprehend the term "partisan"? Or do you just find it convenient to abuse the term in a desperate effort to avoid substance?

Nothing I have stated on this thread is "partisan" unless in your desperation to avoid my question about who you voted for is now considered to be "partisan." In fact, my question is more related to your "state of mind" than it is some farcical notions about what you perceive as "partisan."

The irony of bringing Dragondad into this conversation is also lost on you, however, if you continue to remain confused about what would be a fine example of rabid hyper partisanship, dragondad defines the term; fascinating that your selective outrage is merely directed towards me and you would reference him here.

Main Entry: partisan !p@r-tu-zun!p@r-tu-un
Pronunciation: \ ˈpär-tə-zən, -sən, -ˌzan, chiefly British ˌpär-tə-ˈzan \
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French partisan, from north Italian dial. partiźan, from part part, party, from Latin part-, pars part
Date: 1555
Results

1. 1a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person especially one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
That definition sums you up quite nicely. Especially your desire to bash "Liberals" or Obama in every thread you enter.

Now back to my question; did you vote for Obama; yes or no?
No. Notice that I'm a Libertarian, not a Democrat. Libertarian =/= Liberal.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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.
So it's only conservatives who are opposed to rape? I think there are plenty of liberals who would find that incredibly offensive.

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

the first question that does come to mind is why do your courts make deals with people they suspect of horrible crimes. if Polanski was so awful why do you even offer him a deal? is it court or is your system a TV show?
Because he paid some very good and very expensive lawyers to do their jobs.

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

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.
Uh, what? Where are you getting this?

For a judge to take a sentence that was agreed to and change it so drastically is not only extremely rare...it is unprecedented.
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.

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

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
the first question that does come to mind is why do your courts make deals with people they suspect of horrible crimes. if Polanski was so awful why do you even offer him a deal? is it court or is your system a TV show?
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.
 

Arcana XV

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,412
Reaction score
4,815
Location
Geneva, Switzerland and Rochester, NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
From what I understood it wasn't even about testifying. She just wanted it to be over with so she could continue to move on from it. I was actually surprised that Switzerland detained him. I always thought they stayed out of these types of affairs.
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.
 

DeeJayH

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,728
Reaction score
1,688
Location
Scooping Zeus' Poop
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
rendition comes to mind
 
Top Bottom