|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Should Roman Polanski Do Time? |
| 1-30 of 30 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 09-29-09 07:20pm - 5563 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
jd1961 (0)
Active User  Posts: 296 Registered: Jun 07, '07 |
Should Roman Polanski Do Time? He made a lot of porn in his day, including Sharon Tate, so this is on topic. No doubt you've all heard of him being busted in Switzerland for fleeing his old statutory rape and /or rape conviction 30 years ago. Should he be sentenced and locked up? | |
|
||
| 09-29-09 11:53pm - 5562 days | #2 | |
|
RagingBuddhist (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 893 Registered: Jan 23, '07 |
If it's proven he had sex with a 13-year-old girl, yes. Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupidity. | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 03:00am - 5562 days | #3 | |
|
mbaya (0)
Suspended  Posts: 891 Registered: Jul 07, '08 Location: new jersey |
RB, Not only was it proven, the judge had cut a deal on the length of the sentence. He never said he was not guilty. and the girl never recanted her story either. He has over the years consistently blamed everyone except himself. He admitted that he drugged the girl during a nude photo shoot. It would be rape because of her age, but she was so drugged up she was even incapable of consent. A real model citizen. I don't understand those who defend him. | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 05:45am - 5562 days | #4 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
Oh the pain of a tortured & misunderstood artist! :0/ My ass! No one should get away with serious crime just because they are famous.....or more specifically infamous! :0E Cap'n. :0/ Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU Award Hilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 07:59am - 5562 days | #5 | |
|
RagingBuddhist (0)
Disabled User Posts: 893 Registered: Jan 23, '07 |
mbaya - I only used that language because we're never supposed to call someone guilty before a trial, no matter what the circumstances. But I do know that I'd never pass jury selection for that trial. Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupidity. | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 08:05am - 5562 days | #6 | |
|
ControllingMind (0)
Suspended  Posts: 52 Registered: Jan 29, '09 Location: Inside An Unseen Force |
You can alledge that someone is guilty, as long as you don't make out your statement to sound as if it is true fact. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 08:12am - 5562 days | #7 | |
|
mbaya (0)
Suspended Posts: 891 Registered: Jul 07, '08 Location: new jersey |
It is true that there never really was a trial-but that was due to the fact that he entered a guilty plea. By the way, thanks for the opening so I could make my point. By giving him the benefit of the doubt, I could state the facts of the case. Not about you, but sometimes on the news I get annoyed when they say "alleged". When Saddam Hussein was arrested, the news kept saying "alleged". Was there any doubt that he would never sue for defamation? Bernie Madoff admitted what he did when questioned by the police. The trial was just a formality. Was it possible for him to sue after he made a public statement? When criminals plead guilty and await sentencing, on the news you still hear "alleged". Sometimes politeness and fear of being sued is just ridiculous. My advice is sometimes you don't really have to give the benefit of the doubt. | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 08:48am - 5562 days | #8 | |
|
ControllingMind (0)
Suspended Posts: 52 Registered: Jan 29, '09 Location: Inside An Unseen Force |
It was a bit dumb of him to go to Zurich to accept an award. He must have thought he would not be arrested after all this time. They say his case was almost closed apart from 'a minor technicality' | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 08:55am - 5562 days | #9 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I hear you. We get this daily in our news. The "alleged" killer admitted to murdering his girl friend. How ridiculous can you get. He's confessed and even though there hasn't been a trial yet he's more than "alleged," he is the murderer. | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 09:10am - 5562 days | #10 | |
|
jd1961 (0)
Active User Posts: 296 Registered: Jun 07, '07 |
He was already convicted. | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 09:11am - 5562 days | #11 | |
|
ControllingMind (0)
Suspended Posts: 52 Registered: Jan 29, '09 Location: Inside An Unseen Force |
@Messmer The alledged killer could always retract his previous statement though due to mental reasons, or say he was put under pressure and forced into confessing by the police. Until a Court of Law rules the accused guilty, he cannot be stated in the media as such. The little word 'alledged' can save the press some legal troubles. | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 09:13am - 5562 days | #12 | |
|
jd1961 (0)
Active User Posts: 296 Registered: Jun 07, '07 |
Not true. Earlier this year he was ordered to surrender to the court in LA. He had been convicted and was going to be sentenced. He fled because he feared he was going to get "50 years". | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 09:17am - 5562 days | #13 | |
|
ControllingMind (0)
Suspended Posts: 52 Registered: Jan 29, '09 Location: Inside An Unseen Force |
So what did he expect to happen when he went to Zurich? | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 09:20am - 5562 days | #14 | |
|
jd1961 (0)
Active User Posts: 296 Registered: Jun 07, '07 |
I don't know, maybe after 30 years he thought he was untouchable. I read a post somewhere where someone said this was a sting like one of those Super Bowl ticket giveaways, where the Feds would contact crooks offering the tickets if they show up somewhere. | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 09:44am - 5562 days | #15 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Normally, in the EEC, it is quite easy to get back and forth across borders. I wasn't asked for my passport even once as I traveled from country to country. Of course, this could have changed since 9/11, I haven't been back in years. I hear Polanski even had a chalet in Switzerland that he visited regularly so no one was waiting to pounce on him and he wouldn't have had even the slightest trepidation in connection with his visit. I bet he didn't give a thought to the possibility that he might be apprehended by Swiss law. Europe, especially France, has always treated him more like a respected artist than a child abuser. He apologized to the abused ages ago and she accepted. She is saying even now that she wishes the law and the press would just forget about the whole thing because she went on with her life and people keep insisting on tearing open old wounds and distasteful memories by rehashing the whole sordid affair. If it hadn't been, and wasn't now, for publicity seeking judges the whole thing would have been put to rest ages ago. | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 10:15am - 5562 days | #16 | |
|
mbaya (0)
Suspended Posts: 891 Registered: Jul 07, '08 Location: new jersey |
For good or for bad, the victim's feelings have no legal standing. If he did the crime, it is against the state as a legal entity representing all the people. She has no gripe now and he gave her money years ago. We the people are not a party to that. The settlement as well as the topic of forgivess, is only between those two. On the other point, what danger is there to the media if they cite public information? If someone confesses and then recants, how can the media be sued? I always have heard the truth is an absolute defense. If the truth changes, you were acting in good faith and were not psychic enough to know. I could be wrong, but I think the media does things by rote without thought. He may have gotten leniency years ago if he had simply shown up in a court, as he was supposed to. He made up his own rules for his own purposes. Edited on Sep 30, 2009, 10:21am | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 01:07pm - 5562 days | #17 | |
|
RagingBuddhist (0)
Disabled User Posts: 893 Registered: Jan 23, '07 |
I hereby retract my original wording to say I hope they fry him. Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupidity. | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 01:19pm - 5562 days | #18 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
http://www.slate.com/id/2229853/?GT1=38001 What's "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse"?And other questions from the Explainer's Roman Polanski roundup. By Brian PalmerPosted Monday, Sept. 28, 2009, at 7:18 PM ET Film director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland on Saturday and faces possible extradition to the United States. In 1977, Polanski drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl in the home of actor Jack Nicholson. The sensational case raises a variety of questions, answered herewith. Polanski hasn't exactly been lying low for the last three decades--he even won an Oscar in 2002 for The Pianist. Why didn't the French government ever hand him over? Because he's a French citizen. Under the current U.S. extradition treaty with France (PDF), either country may refuse to extradite its own citizens. (Polanski was born in Paris.) This sort of exemption is a widespread and time-honored aspect of international relations. Neither the Greeks nor the Romans would extradite their own. In the modern era, France has been the strongest advocate for this provision. (The United States did manage to strong-arm the French into dropping the policy in 1843, but France changed its mind a few years later.) Some extradition treaties override the provision when it comes to heinous crimes. A citizen might be extradited, for example, if he were accused of murder or rape. Why did the Swiss choose this moment to arrest Polanski? Because the United States asked them to. The authorities over there might have nabbed Polanski in years past, given that he owns a home in a Swiss skiing town and travels there regularly. State and federal prosecutors in the United States may have begun tracking the director's movements more carefully this year after Polanski tried in December to have his case dismissed from abroad. (Moving to have your criminal charges dropped while you're still on the run is a good way to infuriate prosecutors.) When the United States asked for him to be arrested, the Swiss authorities had little choice but to comply with the terms of our extradition treaty. Polanski pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse" with a minor. What's the difference between that and statutory rape? They're synonymous. Only a few states--Georgia, Missouri, and North Carolina--actually use the term "statutory rape" in their penal codes. Other legal euphemisms for having sex with someone who's underage include "Rape in the Third Degree" (New York), "Felonious Sexual Assault" (New Hampshire), and "Carnal Knowledge of a Child" (Virginia). The California Penal Code currently defines unlawful sexual intercourse as sexual contact with anyone under 18. The penalties become more severe as the age gap widens. Some news sources have reported that at the time of Polanski's crime, the age of consent was either 14 or 16. This is incorrect. California's first penal code in 1850 proscribed sex with girls under the age of 10. The age of consent was raised to 14 in 1889, to 16 in 1897, and finally to 18 in 1913, where it has remained since that time. Polanski molested his victim more than 30 years ago. Hasn't the statute of limitations run on his crime? No. The statute of limitations for a crime requires the state to make a formal charge against the defendant within a certain timeframe. Polanski was charged within a few weeks of the crime and pleaded guilty. At this point, he is a fugitive from justice who is awaiting sentencing. Once you're a fugitive, the statute of limitations clock stops ticking. Some articles note that Polanski wants the charges against him dropped because the judge engaged in misconduct. What's that about? In 1977, Polanski agreed to plead guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse. The presiding judge, Laurence Rittenband, was to decide Polanski's sentence after reviewing a report from the Probation Department and holding a hearing with attorneys for each side. All parties expected Polanski to get only probation. According to a recent documentary, Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney David Wells, who was not involved in the case, intervened with Rittenband. Wells thought Polanski was being cavalier about the charges against him and should serve time for his misdeed. (Wells showed the judge photographs of Polanski partying in Munich with his arms around two young women who Wells claimed were underage.) Rittenband seemed to be convinced and suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he would send the director to prison and order him deported. At that time, Polanski fled. While Wells was not himself an attorney of record in the case, he was a lawyer for one of the parties--the state of California. The California Code of Judicial Ethics (PDF) forbids judges to engage in ex parte communications--discussions where only one side is represented. There is no question that Rittenband violated the ethics code. The question of whether his conversations with Wells are sufficient grounds for dismissal of the charges against Polanski is an open question. There is very little law on the subject to guide the judge who's now presiding over the case. Outright dismissal is an exceedingly rare remedy for ex parte communications, especially when the communications came after the plea agreement was reached. It's far more common for the plea agreement to stand, with a new judge brought in to preside over the sentencing. The original judge could also face sanctions. (Judge Rittenband is deceased, so there's a good chance the unethical contacts will have no impact.) Explainer thanks Gerald F. Uelmen of Santa Clara Law and Charles D. Weisselberg of Berkeley Law. ............................................... COMMENTS This went waaaaay beyond "unlawful intercourse." It's true that Polansky agreed to plea to the lesser crime of statutory rape. It's also true that the judge ignored the prosecutors recommendation of leniency because: - the victim gave explicit testimony that she did NOT consent, contradicting Polanski's claims - the victim was 13 at the time - Polanski gave her alcohol and drugs prior to raping her, in hopes of making her more compliant - The victim was raped orally, vaginally and anally I scoff at those who say this case is unimportant. What if it was YOUR daughter or sister? the fact that he's rich and famous, and 30 years have elapsed, have no bearing on guilt or innocence. Polanski committed multiple, heinous crimes against this girl, and then fled justice. Shame on anyone who argues he doesn't deserve to be brought to justice. -- baltimore aureole | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 01:29pm - 5562 days | #19 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Never thought of it that way, LostFaith, I suppose a forced confession is a possibility. | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 02:05pm - 5562 days | #20 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Polanski had reached a deal with prosecutors to plead guilty to the sex charge and receive 42 days in prison for psychiatric tests -- time he had already served. But Polanski believed the judge might overrule the plea and sentence him to as much as 50 years in jail. That is why he skipped the U.S. Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Samantha Geimer (the current name of the woman who was raped as a 13-year-old by Polanski) testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug, and "despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her", each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop. The District Attorney's office agreed that after serving 42 days in prison for psychiatric tests, that Polanski had received sufficient punishment for the reduced charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. That is what I don't understand. Why would the prosecutors agree to such a minor slap on the wrist for major charges which had the supporting testimony of the minor child who was raped? Edited on Sep 30, 2009, 02:10pm | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 02:16pm - 5562 days | #21 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Having just read the transcript of the girl's testimony I can understand your outrage. | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 02:23pm - 5562 days | #22 | |
|
ControllingMind (0)
Suspended Posts: 52 Registered: Jan 29, '09 Location: Inside An Unseen Force |
Because Polanski is a famous film director, with the backing of other people in high places. Would the same leniency have been awarded if he was a no-name street bum? I think not. | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 06:38pm - 5562 days | #23 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Regardless of what you might think of Roman Polanski has a human being, actor, producer or director. The fact remain that he did have sex with a minor. Whether she was a semi-willing participant or an unwilling one. Sex with a minor was and still is a crime. It's not like she was a mature 13 and he was an immature 20yrs old. The man was in his 40's at the time. I've read some of the transcript and frankly going to prison is long overdue. What is truly shocking is the fact that some famous people are coming to his defense. I hope these people stop and take a good look in the mirror after this is over. Which is more evil? Doing the act or defending it? Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 09:06pm - 5562 days | #24 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
He did time - and he did a plea bargain - yeah, it was a slap on the wrist plea bargain but it was a negotiation where both sides came to an agreement - then the judge was going to renege on the agreed-upon deal so Polanski left the country. What's been going on since then is a complete joke - the US judicial system showing itself as among the most archaic in the world once again. I'd have no qualms if the original plea bargain had been for 2 years in jail for statutory rape and Polanski had then fled the country as a fugitive. But he didn't. He left the country when it was clear to him that the judge in the case was going back on a done deal - so he's right and the US judicial system is totally in the wrong. | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 10:42pm - 5561 days | #25 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Though I don't disagree with the comment by "balitmore aureole" that this is an important case, I will play devil's advocate and ask is this really the most important thing our justice department should be pursuing right now? We still can't decide whether we want to torture or not, what the hell we are going to do with Guantanamo detainees, and I seriously doubt we will ever be lucky/smart enough to catch Osama Bin Laden, but we sure as hell never forget about our child rapists! LostFaith thinks this leniency would not be tolerated if Polanski was a no-name street bum. No, probably not, but would the government even have put much effort into catching a no-name after all this time? I think not, unless the victim or victim's family could get on "Dateline" (which also has an odd obsession with child rape) or something similar and plead their case. Call me a cynic (I already do), but I would not be surprised if we eventually learn their is a political motive behind this, with no consideration for "upholding" the law, or having the slightest bit of empathy for victims. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 09-30-09 11:46pm - 5561 days | #26 | |
|
monty2222 (0)
Active User  Posts: 49 Registered: Feb 20, '09 Location: Denmark |
As far as I know, judges aren't bound by plea bargains arranged between Prosecution and Defence. A lawyer explained on another forum: "A guilty plea is conditioned on a sentencing agreement with the state. If the judge refuses to sentence in accord with the agreement, the plea is void and the non-guilty plea is reinstated as if it were never supplanted by the guilty plea. Additionally, there can be no mention of the defendant's guilty plea or any of the plea negotiations at his trial as all plea negotiations are deemed inadmissible by operation of law. The only thing that would have changed had the judge rejected the plea agreement is that Polanski would have stood trial for his alleged offence. The judge couldn't have just sentenced him to whatever he wanted without consent as the guilty plea becomes void upon the judge's rejection of the agreement." Edited on Sep 30, 2009, 11:51pm | |
|
||
| 10-01-09 08:38am - 5561 days | #27 | |
|
ControllingMind (0)
Suspended Posts: 52 Registered: Jan 29, '09 Location: Inside An Unseen Force |
The judge can reject the plea and order the prosecution and defense parties to either renegotiate, or order the matter to be set down for trial. A high percentage of cases are resolved at this stage, without proceeding to a full trial. Defendants entering a plea must sign a statement certifying that they understand the plea and they also acknowledge that the judges are not bound by the agreement when deciding and rendering sentences. Polanski's actions of making a swift exit has dug himself into a bigger hole of punishment. | |
|
||
| 10-01-09 10:16am - 5561 days | #28 | |
|
james4096 (0)
Suspended Posts: 132 Registered: Mar 02, '09 |
Did Sharon Tate do porn? That I'd like to see. If any of the young guys here has never seen her, look her up. She was drop dead gorgeous. Was it "french art film" stuff like her character did in Valley of the Dolls? | |
|
||
| 10-01-09 10:58am - 5561 days | #29 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I don't think Sharon Tate did any porn. There was talk that Sharon Tate was going to star in the soft-core film "The Story of O". But that might have been just a rumor or story. I do agree that she was a fine-looking woman. | |
|
||
| 10-01-09 06:27pm - 5561 days | #30 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Take a look at her in one of the Matt Helm film that starred Dean Martin. You get a very good impression of how amzing looking she was and that she actually had talent. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 1-30 of 30 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
