Roman Polanski
 

susan atkins is waiting. they're going to be roommates in hell.

There is a big difference between slaughtering an entire family including an 8 month pregnant woman, and having sex with a 13 year old in 1978, who is still alive, has raised a family and asked that the case be dismissed. By doing this arrest, the prosecutors are only reopening old wounds, and bringing more pain and suffering to the Gailey familly.

If Roman Polanski was a real dangerous pedophile, he would have kept being one for the last thirty years. Did he?

If Roman Polanski was a real dangerous pedophile, he would have kept being one for the last thirty years. Did he?


so, he gets one free pass on drugging and sodomizing a thirteen year old. can i do it too if i only promise to do it once?


and why do you assume she is his punishment? maybe she is sentenced to an eternity of listening to him explain what a brilliant misunderstood movie pirates was.

Susan Atkins died of brain cancer three days ago. Maybe she was actually trying too hard to understand his movies ;). Joke apart, isn`t that a very odd coincidence?

synchronicity. i could invest a lot of meaning in it. but probably better if i don't.

she said polanski has paid for his crime? how exactly? were those decades in paris and milan such agony? the girl was a confused teenager. and is now a confused adult. i wonder if the settlement polanski paid to her has anything to do with the more lenient attitude. he's escaped justice for thirty years. time's up.

Who knows. France refused to extradite even though he confessed, so evidently that is acceptable behavior there.

You tell us, being French you must have some insight into this. Why won't France extradite sexual deviants?

Or Murderers, for that matter?

Only if you are an "artist" :rolleyes:

He cannot be sentenced if there is no plaintiff, can he? By being arrested and brought to justice, he will indeed be freed from a life in exile, and the whole story will be put to rest. When the victim does not want to prosecute, there should be no prosecution. However, I see a possibility that lawyers will do all they can to convince her to go after him, so they can put their hands on his money.

I'm no lawyer, but I think plaintiffs bring civil suits, not criminal charges. Since he was already convicted, I don't know why he'd need to be retried. He'd just need to be sentenced and perhaps charged with failure to appear or whatever they call it when you skip between verdict and sentencing. I'm also pretty sure child victims of sex crimes don't get a say in whether the state decides to prosecute.

sentenced? he already plead guilty back in the 70s. he fled the country before he could be sentenced.

Rape is a criminal charge. The plaintiff in criminal cases is the government, either the State or Federal depending on the offense.

He confessed. He was convicted. He ran to avoid sentencing. The fact that his victim wants it to go away so she won't end up on TV/in the papers again is irrelevant.

And the judge is dead. Is that irrelevant too?

While his crime is inexcusable, it does sound like he was getting rail roaded. He plead guilty with an understanding of what the sentence would be and then the judge changed the sentence after he plead.

I don't know, maybe. I suspect there are lots of pedos who manage to keep it up for years without being caught. Maybe he is.

You truly don't understand the court system.:rolleyes:

I think his getting caught attending a film festival/banquet honoring him was hilarious.

Dude was/is a pedophile, never understood all the ass-kissing. So, I can do outrageous/illegal acts, so long as I am well-respected in my chosen field?

Woody Allen is another. An incsetious(sp?) pedophile, but hey, he can direct so it's okay.?!

What I understand of the court system is that it is going to waste more tax payers money and bring more pain and suffering to the victim, for a case that should have been settled and put to rest many year ago. I`d rather see Bin Laden arrested, but that is another story...

Yes it is. The criminal justice system is like rust, it never sleeps.

Using your "logic," I could kill you, and if the judge died after Iwas convicted, but prior to sentencing I get to go home.

Since you are cool with it, you have any 13 year old daughters you can give to a rapist?

That was years ago. Forcing bin Ladin to hide in caves for the last 8 years is punishment enough. The victims' families are trying to move on. Why won't you let it go?

Are you serious? So Bin Laden should get a pass for mass murder, but not Roman Polanski? Nah, you`re pulling my leg ;).

Even people who understand the U.S. justice system are having a difficult time defending/excusing him. You, on the other hand are really extraordinary. I would not have thought it possible for someone to be as completely ignorant as you appear to be. Do you understand the courts in your own country? I'm guessing not.

You make it sound like a bad episode of Dr. Phil or Oprah. As others have pointed out, there is no "plaintiff" in a criminal trial. The aggrieved party who has been raped or murdered or assaulted, etc., is known as "the victim". They do not get to decide whether the accused is charged with a crime. Their lack of cooperation could make prosecution difficult in some cases, however. That would be irrelevant in Polanki's case. The victim cooperated with prosecutors and a grand jury 100% and Polanski pleaded guilty to avoid a trial in which he was sure to be convicted by a jury of child rape and kidnapping. (Holding someone against their will in the U.S. is considered kidnapping in most all cases). He would have been sentenced to life in a maximum security prison and be kept isolated from all other prisoners forever or be killed the first day by his cell mates. Child rapists are the lowest possible scum in the ape-pyramid that is prison social life.

I've not seen the documentary on his trial but have heard about some purported serious judicial misconduct on the part of the sentencing judge. What everyone seems to overlook is the fact that when someone is in the position that Polanski was, (just convicted of a serious crime with no viable defense), the only hope in the world that you have is some serious misconduct by your trial judge that constitutes "reversible error", IOW, grounds for reversal of your conviction on appeal based on that misconduct.

My Dad was a criminal defense lawyer, then later a judge. As a lawyer, if he had no other prayer with a client caught red-handed doing something illegal, the best hope was reversible error by prosecutors or the judge. (Usually involving hidden evidence or the like). He'd get to go to bat against them again after seeing their whole poker hand the first time.

In Polanski's case, he could have plead guilty all over again and hope for an even better deal. (Not really possible in his case but what the hell). At any rate, he was convicted already and fled while out on bail awaiting sentencing. Not exactly a novel or original idea, cavemen were doing it FFS. Your convoluted description of events, (and other's), make it sound like you've never read a word about the case and got your entire legal education in a psych ward.

"Let him go!! I loved Rosemary's Baby! WAHHHH...." :rolleyes: