Polanski

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Re: Polanski

Postby Shapley » Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:01 pm

Giant Communist Robot wrote:Here you'll see he pled guilty to unlawful intercourse with a minor. I'm gonna guess this is the area of her testimony that you refer to when speaking about rape charges.


Sex with a minor, whether consentual or not, is considered 'rape' by statute, hence the name. as Haggis notes, the attitude is different now, and so are the laws regarding it. However, he would still be bound by the laws in force at the time, since no ex post facto laws may apply.

I'm not saying we're not harsher on sex with minors now, I'm saying the shock of his offense has diminished. Much of the outrage at the time stemmed from accusations that Polanski was somehow tied to his wife's murder of a few years prior. He was not charged in any way, but he was under a shadow from that time. That's all but lost on today's generation, and it won't be brought up in a trial, if there is one. He was sort of the O.J. Simpson of his day. They couldn't nail him for the thing they wanted to nail him for, so they were looking for some reason to throw the book at him, and along came this incident.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Polanski

Postby Giant Communist Robot » Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:17 pm

Allowing a 13-year-old girl to pose nude for an older male does not necessarily grant permission for sex, but leaving her alone in the company of said male represents poor judgement to say the least. At least one report indicated that the mother only pursued rape charges


Reading your post again, it looks like the issue is about the sex, not any other charges. As I said, he pled guilty to those.


she may not be willing to testify against him because her role in the issue may not be entirely innocent.

...and so this is a distortion of the facts.
Thinking is overrated
Giant Communist Robot
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3236
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Waiau, Hawaii

Re: Polanski

Postby Shapley » Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:24 am

Giant Communist Robot wrote:Reading your post again, it looks like the issue is about the sex, not any other charges. As I said, he pled guilty to those.


As I said, he pleaded guilty only to the one charge. The others were dropped in the plea bargain. As Haggis notes, the judge is not bound to the terms of a plea bargain, so he can still be sentenced more stringently on that charge. However, he can only be sentenced for the remaining charges if he either pleads 'guilty' to them or is tried on them. Neither has happened.

...and so this is a distortion of the facts.


No. It's speculation on my part. I specifically said "she may" and "her role may", indicating that I do not know all of the facts. Hell, I don't even know if she is alive or dead, which I've also said.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Polanski

Postby jamiebk » Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:29 am

The request for deportation has been made:
#####################################
U.S. asks Switzerland to extradite Polanski
Director fled sentencing for having unlawful sex with 13-year-old in 1977

The Associated Press
updated 6:27 a.m. PT, Fri., Oct . 23, 2009

GENEVA, Switzerland - The United States has asked Switzerland to hand over Roman Polanski to authorities in California, where he could serve up to two years in prison for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl, Swiss authorities said Friday.

The Justice Ministry said in a statement that Washington filed its formal extradition request late Thursday. The 76-year-old filmmaker has been in Swiss custody since his arrest Sept. 26 as he arrived in Zurich to attend a film festival.

The request has been forwarded to Zurich authorities, who will hold a hearing on an unspecified date to decide whether Polanski should be sent back to Los Angeles. If extradition is approved, Polanski may appeal the decision to Switzerland’s top criminal court and, theoretically, to the Federal Supreme Court.

That means the director of such film classics as “Rosemary’s Baby” and “Chinatown” could remain in a Swiss jail for months more of legal wrangling, even though legal experts say he has little chance of avoiding a return to the United States after 31 years as a fugitive.

The maximum sentence Polanski can receive in California is two years, the Justice Ministry said.

“In the American case, he declared himself guilty of having sexual relations with a minor,” spokesman Folco Galli told Europe-1 radio. “According to American law currently in force, the maximum penalty for the crime in question is two years in prison.”

Galli later told The Associated Press that the sentence couldn’t be longer because Polanski could only be punished for the crime that is the basis of his extradition. He said the U.S. informed the Swiss of the maximum sentence in its filing.

In Paris, Polanski’s lawyer said the director would fight extradition.

“He will oppose this request and continue to ask to be released until the request is examined,” Herve Temime said.

The U.S. had until late November to file for extradition, but the Swiss were already asking on Oct. 5 that the Americans expedite the process, according to documents obtained by the AP.

In an e-mail exchange obtained by the AP under U.S. public records request, Los Angeles prosecutors noted that the “Swiss were very eager to receive an advance English copy of our papers” and “the sooner that the Swiss knew we had filed formal papers the better.”

There was no mention in correspondence of the intense public scrutiny over Polanski’s arrest in the Alpine country, which tipped off U.S. authorities that he was expected five days before his apprehension at Zurich’s airport.

Swiss officials have defended the move as routine procedure. But several politicians and commentators have argued that Switzerland may have cooperated too energetically, and that recent U.S.-Swiss troubles over wealthy American tax cheats and Swiss banks may have provided motivation for the arrest.

Polanski, who won a 2003 directing Oscar in absentia for “The Pianist,” was accused of raping the 13-year-old girl after plying her with champagne and a Quaalude pill during a modeling shoot in 1977. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy.

Polanski pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse. In exchange, the judge agreed to drop the remaining charges and sentence him to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. Polanski was released after 42 days by an evaluator but the judge said he was going to send him back to serve the remainder of the 90 days. Polanski then fled the country on Feb. 1, 1978, the day he was to be sentenced.

A French native who moved to Poland as a child, Polanski has lived in France since fleeing the United States. France does not extradite its citizens.

Polanski has been fighting since his arrest to be released from jail. He suffered a serious setback earlier this week when the Swiss Criminal Court rejected his appeal because of the high risk he would flee justice again. It turned down a bail payment of his Alpine chalet in Gstaad, house arrest and electronic monitoring as conditions for his release.

The loss appeared to prompt some rethinking of his defense, when one of Polanski’s lawyers said Wednesday that it was possible that the director might voluntarily return to face justice in the United States.

But that suggestion was quickly rejected by another attorney representing Polanski.


© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33444890/ns ... lebrities/
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Polanski

Postby jamiebk » Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:32 am

Haggis@wk wrote:The US has not yet submitted a formal extradition request to Switzerland after Polanski’s arrest. The Obama administration has until November 25th to do so, or the Swiss will be forced to release Polanski. Over the next five weeks, we will see if the White House is more interested in appeasing its Hollywood backers or enforcing the law.


It would appear, Haggis, that the White House has taken appropriate action to submit a formal extradition request to Switzerland.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Polanski

Postby Shapley » Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:41 am

I said in my earlier post that it takes time. They had until late November to file, but Switzerland seems to have been in a hurry.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Polanski

Postby Haggis@wk » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:06 am

jamiebk wrote:
Haggis@wk wrote:The US has not yet submitted a formal extradition request to Switzerland after Polanski’s arrest. The Obama administration has until November 25th to do so, or the Swiss will be forced to release Polanski. Over the next five weeks, we will see if the White House is more interested in appeasing its Hollywood backers or enforcing the law.


It would appear, Haggis, that the White House has taken appropriate action to submit a formal extradition request to Switzerland.

As I mentioned, I figured this was a "no brainer" and the Obama Administration is probably doing the tone-deaf Hollywood intelligentsia a favor. By continually demonstrating that they don't believe laws should pertain to "artiste" of Polanski's caliber they keep painting themselves in a unflattering light.

I suspect this will be a teapot tempest when he finally returns and after a minimum sentence he'll be re-united with his Left Coast groupies. I wonder if he'll invite the pre-pubescent granddaughters of his BFFs to his welcome home party??
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Polanski

Postby Giant Communist Robot » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:29 am

Shapley wrote:
piqaboo wrote:What part of you equates posing nude with granting permission for sexual relations?


Allowing a 13-year-old girl to pose nude for an older male does not necessarily grant permission for sex, but leaving her alone in the company of said male represents poor judgement to say the least. At least one report indicated that the mother only pursued rape charges when her request for cash was rejected, although I cannot vouch for the reliability of that report. I"m not excusing him. Ultimately, the decision to have relations with the girl rested solely and completely with him. What I was suggesting by the statement that she was 'complicit' was that, even if she is still alive, she may not be willing to testify against him because her role in the issue may not be entirely innocent.



Here's your post. And here's another of yours.

The girl reportedly has forgiven him, and it's doubtful she'll testify against him. The mother was complicit with the original crime, having deliverd her daughter to Polanski so she could pose nude. The statute of limitations is likely out on the drug charges and the rape charges would go nowhere without the girl's testimony.


Look at what this says: "the rape charges would go nowhere without the girl's testimony." The clear focus of your posts is about the rape charges. You barely mention drug charges, and when you do you don't say that "she may not be willing to testify." That statement is in obvious connection with the rape charges.
Thinking is overrated
Giant Communist Robot
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3236
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Waiau, Hawaii

Re: Polanski

Postby Shapley » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:50 am

RIght. He did not plead guilty to the charge of 'rape', he entered his guilty plea to a charge of 'unlawful intercourse with a minor'. No testimony is needed in connection with the 'unlawful intercourse charge', as this has been decided and is only awaiting sentencing. This is different from the charge of 'rape', although many states would classify 'unlawful intercourse with a minor' as 'rape', this does not appear to be the case in 1977 California. If he were to be tried on the 'rape' charge, he would have to enter a plea on that count, and any others with which he may have been charged. He has not done so to date. The drug charges were dropped. The rape charge was dropped. I do not know what other charges may have been levied, but all were dropped except the 'unlawful intercourse' charge.

If I read Jamie's latest post correctly, part of the conditions of extradition indicate that he can only be sentenced on the original charge, and for a maximum of two years.

The maximum sentence Polanski can receive in California is two years, the Justice Ministry said.

“In the American case, he declared himself guilty of having sexual relations with a minor,” spokesman Folco Galli told Europe-1 radio. “According to American law currently in force, the maximum penalty for the crime in question is two years in prison.”

Galli later told The Associated Press that the sentence couldn’t be longer because Polanski could only be punished for the crime that is the basis of his extradition. He said the U.S. informed the Swiss of the maximum sentence in its filing.


So the arguments of testimony or no testimony are now moot.

I see that, in California, the crime of statuatory rape is actually called "unlawful sexual relations", so I was mistaken. It was my understanding from reading news articles on the issue that the 'unlawful relations' charge was a lesser charge than 'rape'. My most humble apologies.

California Penal Code: Section 261.5 Unlawful Sexual Intercourse
Section 261.5.
(a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor. For the purposes of this section, a "minor" is a person under the age of 18 years and an "adult" is a person who is at least 18 years of age.

(b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

(d) Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

(e) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an adult who engages in an act of sexual intercourse with a minor in violation of this section may be liable for civil penalties in the following amounts:

(A) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor less than two years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000).

(B) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at least two years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).

(C) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at least three years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

(D) An adult over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 years of age is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).

(2) The district attorney may bring actions to recover civil penalties pursuant to this subdivision. From the amounts collected for each case, an amount equal to the costs of pursuing the action shall be deposited with the treasurer of the county in which the judgment was entered, and the remainder shall be deposited in the
Underage Pregnancy Prevention Fund, which is hereby created in the State Treasury. Amounts deposited in the Underage Pregnancy Prevention Fund may be used only for the purpose of preventing underage pregnancy upon appropriation by the Legislature.

(3) In addition to any punishment imposed under this section, the judge may assess a fine not to exceed seventy dollars ($70) against any person who violates this section with the proceeds of this fine to be used in accordance with Section 1463.23. The court shall, however, take into consideration the defendant's ability to pay, and no defendant shall be denied probation because of his or her inability to pay the fine permitted under this subdivision.


From further reading, it seems that Polanski's crime would normally be "committing lewd or lascivious acts with a child under the age of 14, Cal. Pen. Code 288(a)", but he pleaded guilty to the lesser crime of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor".

a) Any person who willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or lascivious act, including any of the acts constituting other crimes provided for in Part 1, upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14 years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.
Last edited by Shapley on Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Polanski

Postby Shapley » Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:08 pm

Here in Missouri, there is a crime of 'Statutory Rape', unlawful intercourse usually falls under the definition of that or 'Sodomy'.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Polanski

Postby piqaboo » Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:30 pm

I'm still having issues w the "complicit" comment.

Was mom stupid? So it proved. Complicit in commision of a crime against her daughter? not inherent in the act.

If poor judgement makes a person guilty of the crime, then he who leaves a window unlocked is guilty of the robbery.
And on that, I completely disagree.

Unless you dont think men are capable of the free will my bible says they were given?
And thus, to be tempted is to act, and there is no sin in it, because of the temptation?
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Re: Polanski

Postby Shapley » Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:50 pm

piqaboo wrote:I'm still having issues w the "complicit" comment.

Was mom stupid? So it proved. Complicit in commision of a crime against her daughter? not inherent in the act

If poor judgement makes a person guilty of the crime, then he who leaves a window unlocked is guilty of the robbery.
And on that, I completely disagree..


No. Nor does driving a getaway car make you guilty of bank robbery, but it does make you 'complicit' in the robbing of the bank. A prostitute prostitutes, a pimp pimps, but the pimp is 'complicit' in the crime of prostitution. And, yes, stupidity is unlawful if one's stupidity aids and abets a criminal. In the case of leaving the window open, it merely reduces the robbery from 'breaking and entering' to merely 'robbery'. If it's your own window you left unlocked, it's not criminal. If it's someone else's window you left unlocked, you could be charged as an 'accessory before the fact'.

I used the term 'may' in discussing the involvment of the mother. She 'may' have known that a crime could or would take place, in which case she would be complicit. I was very careful not to say definitively that she was, because I have no knowledge of that fact. However, if I were take a young child to a stranger and leave her alone in his company with full knowledge that he would be having her disrobe, I would probably be charged with a crime. Now, granted, this is Missouri and this is the 21st century, so differences in time and geography may make a difference. However, if my negligent actions resulted in the child being sexually abused by the stranger, I think they would probably consider it complicity.



Unless you dont think men are capable of the free will my bible says they were given?
And thus, to be tempted is to act, and there is no sin in it, because of the temptation?


You're ignoring part of my post:

I"m not excusing him. Ultimately, the decision to have relations with the girl rested solely and completely with him.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Polanski

Postby OperaTenor » Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:47 pm

Haggis@wk wrote:
jamiebk wrote:
Haggis@wk wrote:The US has not yet submitted a formal extradition request to Switzerland after Polanski’s arrest. The Obama administration has until November 25th to do so, or the Swiss will be forced to release Polanski. Over the next five weeks, we will see if the White House is more interested in appeasing its Hollywood backers or enforcing the law.


It would appear, Haggis, that the White House has taken appropriate action to submit a formal extradition request to Switzerland.

As I mentioned, I figured this was a "no brainer" and the Obama Administration is probably doing the tone-deaf Hollywood intelligentsia a favor. By continually demonstrating that they don't believe laws should pertain to "artiste" of Polanski's caliber they keep painting themselves in a unflattering light.

I suspect this will be a teapot tempest when he finally returns and after a minimum sentence he'll be re-united with his Left Coast groupies. I wonder if he'll invite the pre-pubescent granddaughters of his BFFs to his welcome home party??


I certainly hope not. He needs to rot in jail for the rest of his pathetic life.

Hopefully with a big gangsta cellmate.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Re: Polanski

Postby Shapley » Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:38 am

Gore Vidal Speaks His Mind

He refers to the girl raped by Polanski as a 'hooker', not that that matters in legal terms dealing with underage girls. Intercourse with underage hookers still counts as rape under the law.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Polanski

Postby Haggis@wk » Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:47 am

Shapley wrote:Gore Vidal Speaks His Mind

He refers to the girl raped by Polanski as a 'hooker', not that that matters in legal terms dealing with underage girls. Intercourse with underage hookers still counts as rape under the law.


Well, he's in good company, both Polanski and Vidal are vile old men.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Polanski

Postby OperaTenor » Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:10 pm

Kinda makes me glad I don't subscribe to the Atlantic anymore.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Re: Polanski

Postby Haggis@wk » Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:45 am

Roman Polanski has something to celebrate at Thanksgiving. A Swiss court accepted his plea offer of €3 million (roughly $4.5 million) and house arrest with electronic monitoring at his Swiss chalet. The Swiss government is expected to appeal:

A Swiss court has accepted film-maker Roman Polanski’s plea to be freed on bail from a Swiss jail where he is being held for a US child sex case.
Polanski has been wanted in the US since fleeing the country in 1978 after pleading guilty to having unlawful sex a year earlier with a 13-year-old girl. …

While on bail, Polanski would have to be kept under house arrest and electronic monitoring at his Swiss chalet, according to Associated Press news agency.
The ruling is not thought to affect the Swiss government’s ongoing assessment of whether it should extradite Polanski to the US.


Well, except for the fact that Polanski will skip on his bail before getting extradited. He’s been on the run for 30 years on a charge on which he’s already admitted guilt in court. What idiot expects him to stay in Switzerland once let out of prison?

By the way, it’s worth noting that today is November 25th — the last day that the US had to execute a new, formal extradition request. Have we done so? Could the bail issue be related to a failure to comply?
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Polanski

Postby Shapley » Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:55 am

According to CNN, the formal request was made October 21st.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Polanski

Postby Haggis@wk » Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:50 pm

Oh good grief!

Roman Polanski's release secured by Nicolas Sarkozy

Anyone want to swet up a pool when he will flee?? I'm saying before Christmas
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Polanski

Postby jamiebk » Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:49 am

Sounds like all is in readiness for his return "home":

By ELIANE ENGELER
Associated Press Writer

updated 21 minutes ago
GSTAAD, Switzerland - Workers plowed snow away from Roman Polanski's Alpine chalet on Monday, as Swiss authorities worked with the director's lawyers to meet the conditions of his $4.5 million bail and house arrest.

The Swiss Justice Ministry wouldn't say when Polanski would be released from jail. Spokesman Folco Galli said there were still outstanding requirements from last week's court decision that granted Polanski permission to live in the luxury resort of Gstaad if he wears an electronic monitoring bracelet.

"If the conditions were met, he would be in Gstaad," Galli said, refusing to elaborate.

:curse:
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

PreviousNext

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron