Roman Polanski's rape charge

Remove all ads!

I'm sure we're all familiar with what happened in Switzerland. Several decades ago Polanski engaged in sexual intercourse with a 14 year old girl. Where I come from, that's Statutory Rape. However, Whoopi Goldberg says . . . I'll just let her speak for herself.

I'm nauseated.

 

I even read that the victim wants it all dropped, but then again I guess she just wants it to go away.

I must say that I am a bit torn on the issue of what I think the final sentence should be but that he should stand trial is a given.

 

No need for a trial, he pled guilty and then fled.

 

I've heard the victim say that she forgave him long ago. That's great. But a crime, a serious crime, was committed. Society must also express its condemnation of such vile, selfish behaviour.

I was under the impression that he was convicted in absentia, but I'm not positive of this. Whatever the case, IMHO he needs to do serious hard time where he gets frequent human booster shots from a guy named Molly. (I love Family Guy far, far too much )

 

Well, he fled when the judge said he was going to reneg on the deal he cut when he plead guilty. I'm not condoning what Polanski did, and I think the 42 days he spent behind bars (in a psychiatric prison) is far too short a time for the crime he committed, but I also think that a judge should not over-ride a deal struck in a plea bargain.

Maybe the lawyers can give some insight here. Do judges do that with any frequency? What kind of limits are there in sentencing for plea bargains? If a judge can over-ride the deal, why plea bargain at all?

 

Tal, I think people felt sorry for him back then. What happened to his wife and unborn baby (and others staying at his place) would affect anyone. The judge saw differently.

 

I can't see that he can really defend himself. He has done wrong, he should be punished. Simple as that.

Yes, the murder of his wife and child is going to affect him deeply, but that shouldn't get him off the hook. Plenty of people go through horrible circumstances and don't become criminals.

 

Regarding the victim's feelings, given the statement of:

""Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this"."

from the Wikipedia article, I don't think her requests to dismiss the case should be granted. This was a heinous and violent (psychologically, if not physically) crime, and should be treated as such. While it's a pity that the woman has to live with this, dismissing the case won't make history go away.

 

Oddly enough, that's where I went to read through the whole thing, and it's a little disturbing really. Regardless of what Whoopi Goldberg said, this really is "rape-rape". He gave an underage girl alcohol and sedatives, and ignored her when she told him to stop. What else could it be construed as?

 

Well, you're right - her requests to dismiss the case don't really matter. However, from your wiki link:

Bold added by me. Most of the charges were dismissed. The only thing he could have been charged with was unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Now, I don't know for sure what was on the books in California in 1977, but considering he pleaded down to that charge, I'm pretty sure they were a lot less strict than they are today. Everyone expected him to be given probation, and when the judge send he was going to send him to jail and imprison him, he fled the country.

Like I said before, I cannot condone Polanski's actions. However, I think it is also pretty unusual for a judge to not go along with a plea deal. It would help if one of SP's resident lawyers could shed some light on this.

 

I've heard of judges doing this before, but I don't know how common it is.

I feel that an agreement made between the People (as represented by the counsel for the prosecution) and the Accused (as represented by the defense lawyer) should carry a a fair amount of weight. Perhaps the Judge felt that the public perception of the justice system would be unduly tarnished by the deal.

In any event, I feel Polanski should suffer for his crime. He should be brought back to where he committed such a disgusting act and made to pay not only for performing it but also for running away like a coward. The penalty for that should be severe. It should also be a lesson to all douchebags that if you escape to a safe haven, use your bloody head and don"t leave it.

I understand that if I were about to be imprisoned for years, I would probably flee too, but it's really hard for me to muster sympathy for a rapist.

 

Many charges were dropped as a part of the original plea deal, which I think was stupid to begin with. Unless their case was increadibly rocky (which I doubt), they shouldn't have needed to drop most of the charges to get a plea agreement. All told, I suspect there was a heavy amount of favoratism being shown him at the time.

 

That's what I woudl think as well - simply because you see this kind of stuff all the time. It also wouldn't be unusual for Polanski to get a relatively light sentence because A) He was a first time offender B) His early release from the psychiatric prison indicate he wasn't considered a threat as a repeat offender and C) (and probably most importantly) the laws regarding rape were a LOT less strict in 1977 than they are today.

Oh, I don't have sympathy for him. I'm more surprised than anything that he would leave France to travel to any country that has an extradition treaty with the US.

Like I said, it isn't at all unusual to plea down for a first offense. While I'm sure his celebrity played a part in the plea deal, most people get off lightly on a first offense. Of course, seeing as he fled the US, that plea deal is no longer in effect. Provided the statute of limitaitons has not expired, he could face all of those charges if he is returned to the US.

 

The statute of limitations isn't an issue, because he was already found guilty (pled guilty, actually). It's only the sentencing that remains. The only thing he'd be newly charged with is failure to show for a court date.

 

I noticed that Aldeth's quoted text stated that the judge in the 70's case would have him deported... Would be to France or to Poland? If the latter... I think I can understand why he'd want to get away.

Don't get me wrong - Polanski should get what the law proscribes for cases such as his. To be honest, though, I don't much care either way.

 

This is a simple casr of Scumbag.101. Polanski took advantage of a little girl, for his own pleasure. Disgusting. He should be looked up for as long as the law requires. I can't see how any country would help him avoid this penalty that he rightly and justly deserves. Again, digusting.

 

What were the penalties for rape back then? How and why did they change from then to now?

It does sound like she was raped, he drugged her and she even still managed to said no and he pushed on-that is criminal.

Criminal laws vary quite a bit in different nations. There are places where rape gets you the death penalty (I agree that what he did strikes me as a crime but such a punishment also strikes me as too harsh-we don't execute people for nonfatal crimes) and other places where it has been argued to be legal depending on who the victim and perpetrator are-which should also be disturbing a thought to many people.

 

I certainly don't agree with what he did. But as he is a first time offender with (correct me if I'm wrong) no history of criminal offenses. Should he walk off into the sunset? No, of course not. But he shouldn't get 30 years either. He pleaded guilty (so he accepted that what he did was wrong). Even the victim said, in a 2003 interview "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it". In 2008, she said "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever — besides me — and accused him of anything". He made a mistake, a horrible act I agree. He served 42 days in a psychiatric hospital. He was supposed to serve 90 days, which is still not a lot. But after all this time, the victim is pleading in his favor. Shouldn't we listen to her?

What complicates everything is his flight from the US. He acted cowardly, I agree. That has become the focus of the whole ordeal. The US can't send the message that if you flee, it will be all ok because a lot of time has passed since then. So they're forced to come down on this hard. It's not about the rape anymore.

 

I have not read that she said no -- all that I have heard is that she claimed it was "consensual" and that the drugs they took were also done "consensually" -- I put the terms in quotes because a child cannot really give consent, but to my knowledge there was no violence or coercion involved.

Not that it matters to me, though -- she was 13 years old, end of story. But the lack of a violence component means that maybe they can shave off 5 years from a life sentence. That's what should happen.

But what will happen is that idiot celebrities who should know better, and weak kneed, hand wringing losers will put up a tremendous fuss. The ACLU will claim that Polanski's delicate civil rights were violated and so he should be totally exonerated. Polanski will never see a single day in jail. He'll end up receiving an apology, mark my words. It's utterly nauseating.