This is the thread where the fringster comes back with teeth

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by ironweed

And yet Bank of America could not flee to its ski lodge in Gstaad and pursue a career in directing, despite the fact that corporations are nominally entitled to all of the protections we afford natural persons. Where is the outrage?

I'm not outraged, because for $50 they could have a watch that tells time there and five other locations.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

2. Yeah, this argument is particularly stupid and I hate when people trot it out as if it has any relevance whatsoever. He committed a crime.

Did Michael Vick get special treatment because he was a good football player?

Some might argue yes.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't like Polanski, I don't like what he did, and I don't like the fact that he skipped the country. I don't know enough about the circumstances surrounding his plea bargain to know how strong his position there is. I'm really not interested in playing the part of Polanski's defender on this board, since -- as I mentioned, I don't like him or what he did, and can't even think of a movie of his that I liked apart from Chinatown -- of the irony. That said, I think the status quo ante a few days ago -- Polanski unable to visit certain countries, AUSAs and press spending their efforts on other things -- maybe better served the public and his victim.

Agreed. He's a deviant ball of shit better left to fade away elsewhere. Now we're going to spend $2 million prosecuting him because the Swiss, acting very non-Swiss, decided in this case to play an interventionist role.

"You say there's billions in Holocaust victims' unclaimed funds in our banks? Sue us if you want it."

"Roman Polanski, a 76 year old with a 30 year arrest warrant on his head, is in town? Let's arrest him. Deport him, asap."

The scumbag ought to rot in jail somewhere, but the cost/benefit ratio on this one suggests the status quo was better left undisturbed.

ETA: Is it "non-Swiss" or "un-Swiss"? Or should I have just gone with cheddar?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Here's another critique of the movie: http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/200...ary/index.html

and the Grand Jury testimony from the victim:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...skicover1.html

From the Salon piece: "But it leaves the strong impression that Polanski was a wronged man, jerked around by a cartoony, publicity-hungry judge to the point where fleeing was his only viable option."

This was indeed the impression I was left with. I leave open the possibility that the documentary was unfairly skewed, but I never got the sense, as the Salon writer did, that the documentary was trying to whitewash the crime. In fact, I had started the movie with some vague and unfounded notion that Polanski had just had a little hanky panky with an underage but willing girl, and was quite horrified to learn about the actual crime. My sense after viewing the documentary is that there is a polarization. One side views Polanski as a tragic hero who bravely fled a corrupt American judicial system supported by a prudish American morality that just doesn't understand how Europeans behave. The other side views Polanski as a sadistic rapist who, lacking the moral courage to pay the price for his crimes, attempts to shift blame to everyone but himself and, in so doing, subverted our beautiful judicial system. My recollection of the documentary is that, even if skewed, it shows that there are parts of both views that appear to be correct and that there are many nuances to the story that are ignored by both sides because they are inconvenient to their stongly-held, overly-simplistic views on the subject.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

he pled, or wanted to- so where was the failure to "get a fair trial?"

I think the point the review was trying to make was that Polanski wasn't going to get a fair trail from that judge. At least that's how I understand that sentence.

and how the fuck does one rape an intoxicated 13 year old, and plea to probation? I don't know how screwed the judge was- but the prosecutor wasn't exactly making decisions that seem too sound either.

As I said before, he did six weeks committed to a psych facility (and had agreed to do 90 days). I don't know why the prosecutor agreed to that, or whether it was in line with comparable cases at the time.

eta: whatever PLF has or will say on the subject

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Some might argue yes.

Well, some might argue that "descent is the highest form of patriotic" but that doesn't mean they have any credibility.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Now we're going to spend $2 million prosecuting him because the Swiss, acting very non-Swiss, decided in this case to play an interventionist role.

Are we/would we? SEems that with a guilty plea if he's ever extradited he gets sentenced according to whatever the law says he deserves (or did in 1978). No prosecution is necessary. If he wants to show the judge was corrupt, he has to bear that burden. But is that even relevant to the guilty plea? I could understand that a corrupt judge might impose an unfair sentence, but the deal he had was with the prosecutor, and then he skipped town on the judge. So with a fair judge, is there any issue he has?

This seems like a 30 minute sentencing hearing, if the woman shows up. Or 5 days at worst, if the judge wants to turn it into a spectacle by allowing all of Hollywood to show up and say what a genius Polanski is, despite his past misdeeds that he's learned from.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

... The other side views Polanski as a sadistic rapist who, lacking the moral courage to pay the price for his crimes, attempts to shift blame to everyone but himself and, in so doing, subverted our beautiful judicial system.

The next day she went to her drawer, looked up her local attorney at law,
went to the phone and filed the police report and then she took the guy's ass to court.
Well, the day he stood in front of the judge he screamed, " She lies that little slut!"
The judge knew that he was full of shit and he gave him 25 years
And now his heart is filled with tears.

That night in jail it was getting late.
He was butt-raped by a large inmate, and he screamed.
But the guards paid no attention to his cries.

That's when things got out of control.
The moral of the date rape story, it does not pay to be drunk and horny.
But that's the way it had to be.
They locked him up and threw away the key.
Well, I can't take pity on men of his kind,
even though he now takes it in the behind.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

ETA: Is it "non-Swiss" or "un-Swiss"? Or should I have just gone with cheddar?

Always go with the cheddar.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't know why the prosecutor agreed to that, or whether it was in line with comparable cases at the time.

It seems pretty hard to imagine that any corruption worked against Polanski w/r/t the prosecutor if six felonies were reduced to probation on a lesser charge in the plea agreement. If there was no corruption was he supposed to get 100 hours of community service?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Actually, those are not the facts, but I understand that these sorts of subtleties have no place when we wave our giant flags of righteous indignation.

I actually started this thread, so don't tell me how to run it- okay?

And I asked the simple question, "why would anyone feel arresting him is shocking?"

You seem to feel he was justified in fleeing, because a judge was behaving oddly. If I chose to engage that point I would devastate your position by simply noting "judges behaving oddly" is a really good reason to avoid our courts entirely.

And I don't care if his fleeing was righteous or not. he is now done fleeing, and will hopefully see a judge that behaves less oddly.

as a man more schooled in the criminal justice system than either of us once said: "Don't go to bed with no price on your head. Don't do it. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Are we/would we? SEems that with a guilty plea if he's ever extradited he gets sentenced according to whatever the law says he deserves (or did in 1978). No prosecution is necessary. If he wants to show the judge was corrupt, he has to bear that burden. But is that even relevant to the guilty plea? I could understand that a corrupt judge might impose an unfair sentence, but the deal he had was with the prosecutor, and then he skipped town on the judge. So with a fair judge, is there any issue he has?

This seems like a 30 minute sentencing hearing, if the woman shows up. Or 5 days at worst, if the judge wants to turn it into a spectacle by allowing all of Hollywood to show up and say what a genius Polanski is, despite his past misdeeds that he's learned from.

You think Polanski isn't going to file every imaginable paper to set the thing up for appeal if he doesn't get the result he wants? This will be costly. And there will be intense pressure on prosecutors to ensure there's no favoritism. All that was done before can be thrown out upon the right combination of applications. The extradition alone will cost the prosecution a pile of money.

Perhaps this is some nasty little joke on us by the Swiss, for fucking with their banking system with that appalling over-reach last year where we demanded they give the IRS information on UBS clients Swiss banking laws prevent the bank from giving to any other nation. We played hardball in that case, so they pay us back by giving us another ugly, tawdry courtroom celebrity drama.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think the point the review was trying to make was that Polanski wasn't going to get a fair trail from that judge. At least that's how I understand that sentence.

quick question: do you understand what a guilty plea does to the average length of the eventual "trial?"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

It seems pretty hard to imagine that any corruption worked against Polanski w/r/t the prosecutor if six felonies were reduced to probation on a lesser charge in the plea agreement. If there was no corruption was he supposed to get 100 hours of community service?

I don't recall anyone suggesting that the prosecutors did something corrupt. I think the judge was talking to someone in that office who wasn't on the case.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

From the Salon piece: "But it leaves the strong impression that Polanski was a wronged man, jerked around by a cartoony, publicity-hungry judge to the point where fleeing was his only viable option."

This was indeed the impression I was left with. I leave open the possibility that the documentary was unfairly skewed, but I never got the sense, as the Salon writer did, that the documentary was trying to whitewash the crime. In fact, I had started the movie with some vague and unfounded notion that Polanski had just had a little hanky panky with an underage but willing girl, and was quite horrified to learn about the actual crime. My sense after viewing the documentary is that there is a polarization. One side views Polanski as a tragic hero who bravely fled a corrupt American judicial system supported by a prudish American morality that just doesn't understand how Europeans behave. The other side views Polanski as a sadistic rapist who, lacking the moral courage to pay the price for his crimes, attempts to shift blame to everyone but himself and, in so doing, subverted our beautiful judicial system. My recollection of the documentary is that, even if skewed, it shows that there are parts of both views that appear to be correct and that there are many nuances to the story that are ignored by both sides because they are inconvenient to their stongly-held, overly-simplistic views on the subject.

This is an interview 10 years after he fled. Look at the sequence that starts at 1:35.

Based on that alone, the idea that "no one was hurt" and that he couldn't figure out what he did wrong, after he admitted what he did to her, I would put him in the meanest maximum security lockup around.

If this is American prudish morality, so be it. Thems his own words, and they hang him.