[Dueller]

Guess we are arguing apples and oranges here. Once again let me reiterate I am not defending Polanski. Rather i am arguing the law, prosecutorial misconduct, judicial misconduct, etc. And I'll be the first to admot that two wrongs don't make a right.

Look at the statute,,,Cali code 261.5. The Cali legislature saw fit to recognize that various factors must be considered in determining the seriousness of the crime lest they would not include language where the crime could be a misdemeanor or various levels of felonies. If I am not mistaken (and I may be since I am not licensed in California) even in a statutory rape case the victim's chaste or unchaste character, mistake of age, consent by the victim, etc may be considered as a mitigating or aggravating factor or used as a defense. As far as age concerns, Cali law suggests that there are differing levels of crime severity dealing with the age of victim under 18, perp over 18 and perp over 21.

By contrast, in my jurisdiction (Miss) statutory rape is a crime of strict liability: If victim under 16 and perp more than 3 years older victim's character, mistake of age, consent etc is not a defense nor is it even admissable. There is a minor concession in that if perp is under 21 then max sentence is 5 years. If perp over 21 then max sentence is 20 years.

So it varies from state to state. The California crime Polanski pled guilty to could have resulted in probation, up to 1 year, or 2/3/4 years apparently depending on the circumstances and defenses. In Mississippi he would be facing 20 years and none of the defenses or mitigating circumstances would be considered. In either state, over 21 is the only age considered.

Let me also reiterate I am not blaming the victim. But in a 2003 interview with Larry King (I think) she stated that she had a photo shoot with him 2-3 weeks earlier where he did not try anything, she willingly took the quaalude, drank champagne with him, willingly took her top off in the hot tub to pose for him since that was very "european ", that she had already had sex with her 17 y.o. boyfriend, that her mother encouraged her to model for him since he was a famous director who could help her career, etc. I have seen the non-nude photos in the hot tub and she seemed somewhat coquetish in those pics.

That is not suggesting I condone Polanski's actions or suggest she deserved what happened to her. But the events did not occur in a vacuum. As far as Polanski knowing her actual age, I don't think he found out until afterwards although he did testify that he knew her age before...IIRC I've seen something to the effect that he answered that way in the plea hearing so as to not raise the mistake of age defense. You'll note in the transcript there was a pause with an off the record discussion when asked if he knew her age at the time of the act.

Anyways...like I say...I am looking at it from a pure legal analysis and not a moral perspective.