***
If you need to refresh your memory, here's what Roman Polanski is accused of doing.
It is not wrong, is it, to lift the heart of a prisoner who deserves his punishment? But Polanski has been evading punishment, and even now, he is likely to work out his legal problems in such a way that he will not be sentenced to further time in prison.
Posts
20 comments:
I feel so sorry for the child rapist.
You don't skip a beat do you Althouse?
A view of Winterthur prison. Cell-block R for Roman (handily also for rapist).
wv: materme. A cry to the Holy Mother.
(the other kev)
At least he apologized to the victim. Oh, wait . . .
Is anyone in France on the side of children's rights to go unmolested by movie directors?
Convert to Islam.
Die in a failed attempt to kill infidels.
Presto--Polanski Paradise.
What? Does this mean they didn't deliver my piss off and rot letter?
Uh oh. Conflicting edits. You know what that means. Rosemary's offspring is mess'n with mah dadgum posts.
miller said...
I feel so sorry for the child rapist.
Many people are still ignorant of the distinction between pedophilia and pederasty.
The girl he "did" wasn't a child. She wasn't even a teen virgin.
Polanski is a straight pederast who did many girls the same age as the one he got in legal trouble for. It was just legal over in Europe.
Other pederasts are gay. Pederasty and gay go together. The Catholic "pedophile" Priests were not pedophiles, they were gay pederasts targeting willing young gay adolescent boys for their amorous attentions. Same with Oscar Wilde and his "rent boys". Harvey Milk, patron saint of the gay activists, was also a noted pederast..
Polanski is a creep, but my problem is that the US ignored following up on "bringing him to justice" for his jailbait escapade for almost 30 years - he settled with the girl long ago - and NOW justice will somehow best be served by prosecuting?
It doesn't quite fit "statute of limitations", but it illustrates why we have statute of limitation laws. No one wants the State or lawsuit litigation to be able to reach back decades in each persons past to burn them - only a few special crimes, like murder, espionage, maiming, treason - are exceptions.
Cedarford:
He was convicted, idiot. He never served his time. The Statute of Limitations doesn't apply. Nor should it.
And if it was legal over in Europe, then the son of a bitch should have stayed in Europe and not tried that shit here.
Jeez. At least you're more entertaining when you focus your morally blinkered obtuseness on the Joooooos.
ouch cedarford..when it appears there is no more to be said on an issue, up you pop
ouch cedarford..when it appears there is no more to be said on an issue, up you pop
so rape was legal in Europe ... wow, who knew ...
btw I love your nuance ... so thoughtful ...
He plyed her with booze and drugs, she told him no and he still raped her.
This isn't pederasty. The fact she was 13 at the time just makes it worse. Had she been 18, it's still rape.
Poor Polanski, what's this world coming to when a rich Hollywood director gets arrested for a piddly crime like fleeing justice and sexual assault on a minor.
It's almost like Nazi Germany.
(Sarcasm obvious)
I think you entered the wrong address in the last link.
I think Cedarford and Whoopi Goldberg are of one mind on this topic.
Just imagine.
For a minute there, I was happy that he had been extradicted to the U.S. and was being held in Delaware.
The girl said 'no'. Therefore it was rape. C4 is critically wrong on two points: a 13 year old female certainly is a child, and her virginity (or putative lack thereof) is immaterial.
Prof. A wrote, "[E]ven now, he is likely to work out his legal problems in such a way that he will not be sentenced to further time in prison."
The link goes to thesmokinggun.com's publication of grand jury testimony from 1977. I don't see how that particular link supports your prediction, Prof. A, but I have read that at various times during his multi-decade flight, the prosecution and/or new judge may have dangled a deal like what you've described, always conditioned on Polanski voluntarily returning.
Whether he voluntarily returns, or is instead involuntarily returned, ought to make a huge difference in how he's treated by both the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office and the trial court. If he's brought back kicking and screaming, rather than as part of a negotiated deal (of even limited scope) through which he waives further challenge to extradition, that might count in his favor as a partial mitigation.
But completely apart from the six felonies alleged in the indictment, or the one (at least potential) felony as to which he's already pleaded guilty, when he fled the jurisdiction Polanski committed at least one and, quite possibly, six new and independent felonies under Cal. Penal Code § 1320.5, each of which could result in a year's imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. The bench warrant issued when he failed to appear in 1977 was, under Cal. Penal Code § 804(d), almost certainly sufficient to stop the running of limitations even if Polanski has never been indicted for his failure to appear (a crime that in some other jurisdictions might go under the label of "escape").
Proving any of the six felonies alleged in the 1977 indictment might be hard now due to the passage of time and a lack of enthusiastic cooperation from the victim, but proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Polanski fled and failed to appear would be the proverbial "slam-dunk."
I hope your prediction turns out to be badly wrong. Don't you, too?
(WV: "bardiste," no doubt descriptive of my status as a member of the State Bar of Texas Bar, or else my level 60 bard in EverQuest.)
Polanski Lawyer Says Client Will Face Only One Charge if He Returns to LA
Just because a lot of pathetic people need to dwell on the director's supposed indecency to make themselves feel decent in comparison, doesn't mean that normal evidentiary standards should be abandoned in the Polanski matter.
Full story at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-norman/polanski-lawyer-says-clie_b_405766.html and http://www.citizenjeff.com
Post a Comment