Thirith on 28/9/2009 at 17:57
Quote Posted by SD
ow, I'm willing to bend a little way this way or that way on morality, which as you point out, can be subjective. But there is no way on this Earth that getting a 13-year-old girl off her face on drink and drugs, then raping her vaginally and anally, is
ever justifiable.
Absolutely - but that's where to my mind the 32 years that have passed since come in. I believe that such a span of time can change people, and that this can and should be taken into consideration. Doesn't mean that the end result might not be the same (i.e. Polanski going to jail, probably for the rest of his life), but for me that sort of question shouldn't be a foregone conclusion.
Namdrol on 28/9/2009 at 17:59
And the likely cynical political exploitation of the situation...
(Swiss bank account anyone?)
Aerothorn on 28/9/2009 at 18:06
Quote Posted by Stitch
This simplification ignores the minor details, yeah, but hopefully those can all shake out during a fair trial.
And here we have the catch. It's understandable that Polanski fled the country the first time because he
wasn't getting a fair trial, and it was clear that the US Justice system wasn't going to do anything about it. To return, he'd be placing his trust in the US government that they wouldn't make the same mistake again - and given all the aggressive sensationalism and generally hostility to so-called pedophiles in the USA, it's likely that that wouldn't be possible. Certainly not in a jury trial, though it's my understanding that this would be taken care of by a judge, so I guess it just depends on how chill he/she is.
Vivian on 28/9/2009 at 18:45
Current social mores have no effect on basic human drives, unfortunately. I'm not arguing for polanski, he's seems to be some kind of scumbag rapist etc, but an interesting q; the issue with paedo's is supposedly superior intellect/worldliness being used by the older person to essentially trick the younger person, right? So it technically cannot be consensual because younger party is too naive to know what they are doing. In that case, is consensual sex with a mentally subnormal person possible?
demagogue on 28/9/2009 at 19:04
Just a note to keep our t's crossed and i's dotted. He's already had a fair trial, plead guilty, case over. Only sentencing remains. So there's no issue about "he still needs to stand trial", or "hopefully those can all shake out during a fair trial". He's guilty; he plead to a serious crime that deserves sobering punishment.
He also alleges a plea bargain which puts us in the uncomfortable reality that the system not only lets people go for lighter sentences for quite serious crimes (count the times murder 2 or worse gets bargained down to man slaughter), but it actually needs that ability to function effectively. A lot of people that have problems with the light sentence he already did (and claims is what he plead for as the final punishment) should have issues with the way plea bargaining works generally. There's no doubt it's a devil's contract, but the ultimate goal is the public welfare because without that tool working properly a lot more dangerous criminals are on the streets. Anyway, it's a subject you need to consider in its broader context, rather than taking the "easy" cases in a vacuum (which isn't to say this itself was a good outcome.)
Then there's the fleeing part. That's what I think is the real rub of the case; he fled on ongoing procedure that hadn't reached its conclusion ... His argument is that the system abused him once; what's to stop it from abusing him again, which has a certain logic, but can't be an excuse from following the procedures out by the book like everybody else. It's in this sense that I think he can't fairly claim exceptionalism. Lots of people have lots of issues with the outcome of their cases; they all need to argue them out in the proper way by the book and no one should have exceptional status for that. RP's anxieties are understandable and there's plenty about American legal oddities that might spark distrust. But by the book it should rightly be held against him. It's not like running from the Congo court system. It's California ... they have a stake in the fairness of their system too and claiming it can't handle allegations of abuses of fairness isn't so credible.
And the L.A. DA's office is quite in its rights to push for extradition, play it by the book, and push for a harsher sentence till the end, and give RP's chance to argue his plea-abuse claims. The system is working just like it's supposed to. That's why I'm not that worked up about this TBH. Everything is working out like the system intends it to.
One thing though. From what I've read I don't think the Swiss were really acting so politically in letting the extradition go now. While I see how it looks that way, especially with some of the timing, I really think it's a matter of all the stars aligning with Polanski's plans and the LADA's extradition procedures all aligning in the right way, when they didn't in the past.
Edit: Hate to add to a long post, but just to have a final point ... Either the "deal" RP made is legitimate as a plea bargain or at least shouldn't be abused to his prejudice, then it's important for systemic reasons for the court to "play fair" by the deal, and quibbles that it's too light as a sentence are more problems people have with the way plea bargaining works than this case per se; or it's not legitimate and then there's little debate that, minus an agreement, guilt for this type of crime demands a harsher penalty that he should serve. That's how I see the two sides of it; again, not really about sympathizing or demonizing RP or his circumstances or the crime or the LADA for pushing it. It seems to reduce instead to somewhat mechanical issues, that once that's cleared up, all the stuff people really care about (what punishment does this really deserve; is it fair; is RP's case "special") all get answered automatically in its wake.
Aerothorn on 28/9/2009 at 20:45
I'm assuming most of the people here have seen Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired? Regardless of where you stand on the issue, it's the most prominent recent work on the subject and seems like required viewing.
My friend (who owns the documentary, and with whom I watched it with last year) reminded me of a few key facts in the case:
1. Roman Polanski did not plead guilty for rape. He plead guilty for unlawful sex and that's the only thing the court charged him with. Yes, there is a difference.
2. Furthermore, the victim was not passed out nor inexperienced (and had sex with other people of similar age differences previously). While legally a minor cannot give consent - and therefore it was legally rape regardless of the circumstances - there's still a difference between having sex with the minor with or without their permission. They are not an automaton: their judgement, however impaired people may consider it, counts for somethin
3. Finally, (and this is my friend talking here) "the court did sentence him and he went to jail, got out early on probation, and ran when the judge began to act illegally, at which point it could be easily argued putting Polanski's (even jailed) well being on the line."
Anyway, my stance on the issue. Earlier I avoided getting into this (because I learned years ago that debating with SD is futile) but now that some other people have jumped in I'll throw in my own two cents.
On one hand, by any pragmatic standards, this is ridiculous - a waste of time at best and unjust at worse. That said, you can understand the position of the USA. He was convicted of a crime. He fled. Legally speaking, they can't just say "Oh, we'll let you off because you're famous and popular." Of course, there is the little detail that his trial was fucked up, but even if that was retried and voided, he would have to face the seperate charge of being a fugitive. Legally, the USA is doing this properly, as far as I can tell (with the possible exception of demanding that he be there to be re-tried; I don't know what the legal precedent is on this matter). Essentially, the USA either has to be unfair to Polanksi (by doing this whole thing) or unfair to everyone else (by given Polanski special treatment that hundreds of thousands of other ill-convicted criminals do not receive). It's a crappy situation. Not really sure what should be done. I would say they should continue with the whole thing, get him int he country, and just go with the original plea bargain deal - but then they have to deal with the fugitive charge. Again, they can't rightfully let him off it, but it would be unjust to push it when he fled in the first place for a very good reason. Sigh.
SubJeff on 28/9/2009 at 21:07
Correct me if I'm wrong but you sound like a bit of a Polanski apologist.
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
On one hand, by any pragmatic standards, this is ridiculous - a waste of time at best and unjust at worse.
What is? Him being pursued or him being free atm?
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
Essentially, the USA either has to be unfair to Polanksi
How is it unfair? Do the crime do the time.
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
it would be unjust to push it when he fled in the first place for a very good reason.
I don't get how it's unfair. He may have had good reason to flee but is there a good reason for him not to be brought to justice now? Its years later and the circumstances will be very different. The one thing that hasn't changed is that he had sex with a child and hasn't served his sentence for it.
Aerothorn on 28/9/2009 at 21:17
I wouldn't call myself an apologist (I'm not huge on sleeping with 13-year-olds, I gotta say), just very conflicted on the issue. Under neutral circumstances, I would agree - do the crime, do the time (and it's my understanding that the time for "unlawful sex" really isn't that bad, anyway). But at the end of the day, I also know that, had I been in his shoes, I may have also fled the country - not out of a refusal to be punished for my crime in general, but because it was clear the the sentencing was going to be completely fucked, on account of the judge being horribly corrupt.
Basically, we US is now in position of cleaning up a mess left by a judge who was allowed to keep his post for far too long. I honestly agree that, if the US is going to be consistent with its own legal system (and it certainly should want to be!) it DOES need to follow the letter of the law, try him, etc. But during the trial they should certainly factor in the circumstances that led to this whole mess in the first place.
And let's hope they keep the media OUT of the courtroom this time.
