dagblog - Comments for "Weekend Of A Champion - Lost Polanski Gem"

He pled guilty and spent some

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:51:32 +0000

In reply to http://www.huffingtonpost.com

He pled guilty and spent some time in prison (not jail, Chino prison - seemingly under disguise as "psychiatric evaluation" so judge could say he spent time in prison). You can bitch about whether that was enough, but that seems to be the punishment agreed to with the courts.

The rapist would eventually go free at end of time served, so all we're arguing about is whether enough time was served.

Again, Polanski admitted his guilt and spend 1 1/2 months in prison. Additionally, he's undoubtedly lost millions of dollars over 3 decades and a good amount of freedom as a world-known director, so no, unlike most rapists, he didn't just "go free".

PS - and in slightly related news, the Steubenville teachers face up to 7 years for obstructing the investigation into the rape and Facebooking of a comatose drunk girl, while the guy who helped Anonymous hackers shame the police into doing something faces 10 years. No good deed goes unpunished.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com

ocean-kat — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:12:37 +0000

In reply to "Did I say every Polanski

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/50-facts-rape_b_2019338.html

I've posted those statistics here before. The difference is I posted them to show how inadequate our criminal justice system is in dealing with rape while you posted them to justify letting a rapist go unpunished. There's lots of disagreement as to what happened before Polanski flew to England. You think its important but none of it makes a damn bit of difference to me. Interesting that you always chose the articles that let the rapist go free. Shows how different we view things.

I'm not into telling people what to post here. That's your game. You can post whatever you want.

"Did I say every Polanski

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:17:35 +0000

In reply to Why are you asking me these

"Did I say every Polanski film should start with an announcement that Polanski is a rapist? Let me check, oh lookie I didn't."

"Until then, when his name comes up I'll post the fact that he's a slimy child rapist"

Okay, there's some kind of subtle difference there - your personal mission, not a societal / industry requirement.

Anyway, as I noted, the focus on the judge's statements/questions in the courtroom vs. how a normal plea bargain goes might undermine the certainty of those quoting that session.

http://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/roman-polanski-it%E2%80%99s-a-simple-matter-of-law/

http://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/the-roman-polanski-the-facts-of-the-case-pt-i/#comment-675

http://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/roman-polanski-redux-a-judicial-horror-story/

Whoopi Goldberg is wrong, Polanski is still a shmuck and a rapist who made a girl's life very difficult, but that doesn't mean the way the case was handled was proper. Not because there was a double standard, but because there seems to have been an agreed double standard and that double standard wasn't followed through after agreement - as I noted, in closed room bargaining. The prosecutor in the case, Roger Gunson, apparently testified that Polanski had served the tie required in this case, but the US extradition proceedings refused to release the transcripts of Gunson's meeting to the Swiss government. Oops, the Swiss then refused to extradite.

Most of the time plea bargains involve people who've committed crimes - often unsavory - and obviously the point of a plea bargain is to get a lower sentence (by the defendent), to save public resources & make conviction certain (by the judge), and hopefully to make justice move quicker than trial-by-jury allows. (I believe something like 90% of cases are pled rather than go to trial). Polanski pled guilty, and from what the Swiss indicated, it seems Polanski fulfilled the conditions of that deal. For what it's worth, Polanski also publicly apologized to Geimer, even if not the strongest or timeliest mea culpa.

And some basic facts on rape to put this in perspective: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/50-facts-rape_b_2019338.html - it's not like Polanski's case is very unusual except that he was caught and pled guilty and actually spent some time in prison. "22. Percentage of rapists who are never incarcerated: 97 percent"

So in conclusion, "Until then, when his name comes up I'll post the seeming fact that an overzealous self-absorbed judge seems to have screwed up an agreed high-profile conviction even while DAs 20 years later are still playing for the conservate Law 'n Order cameras". Should balance things out, no?

Why are you asking me these

ocean-kat — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:10:40 +0000

In reply to Should there be a label on

Why are you asking me these questions? Did I say every Polanski film should start with an announcement that Polanski is a rapist? Let me check, oh lookie I didn't. Did I say no one should be allowed to see Polanski's films or even that they shouldn't?

You want to discuss this film with Michael or any one else here I guarantee I won't interrupt every sub-thread pointing out that Polanski is a rapist. Even if I was that rude I'm sure the moderators would stop me.

I feel totally comfortable starting this little sub-thread, in fact I'm glad I did. One of several reasons is that prominent people are still defending him on tv. Like Whoopi Goldberg on the view claiming it wasn't "rape rape." Clearly she and others haven't read the transcript of the victim's grand jury testimony.

Some claim he's atoned or that later in life he got a clue. I haven't seen it. He could make a statement. He could ask people to stop defending him. He could say what he did was wrong. He could say that pedophilia in Hollywood is a problem, as it is in all society, and something should be done to protect child actors. Then maybe I'd say he's gotten a clue, that maybe he's atoned.

Until then, when his name comes up I'll post the fact that he's a slimy child rapist

Should there be a label on

artappraiser — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:44:55 +0000

In reply to Nor does the quality of those

Should there be a label on every Picasso painting that he was a real nasty abuser of spouses before anyone is allowed to look at them?

Suppose Carl Andre, the famous minimalist sculptor, was convicted and not acquitted of killing his wife? Would that mean one should not look at his work? (From the link: the Guerrilla Girls labeled him the “O.J. of the Art World,”)

Not to mention that Weekend of A Champion was created 6 years before the incident in question. If one were trying to put the film in the context of director life influence while viewing the film, it would make more sense to look at the murder of his wife and in-utero child by the Manson gang only two years before (but judging from the film's topic and reviews, not very much sense, mho.)

BTW, statute of limitations

artappraiser — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:17:15 +0000

In reply to I thought there was a statute

BTW, statute of limitations is about the ability to bring charges. He was charged and pled guilty. He is a fugitive from justice. From a 2009 Q & A @ Slate:

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.

So now we have a situation where the victim no longer wants the case pursued. And the perp who pled guilty has not gone on to commit further crimes, at least not for which he has been implicated. So for many years, this has really been about the honor of the state of California and its ability to enforce punishment as regards a guilty plea as it sees fit. It's really all about their plea bargain process at the time and whether they acted fairly or whether the perp was treated with special consideration that was then threatened to be withdrawn. It should be noted that they could probably could not hold a successful trial on new/different charges because the victim is not at all amenable.

The real lesson: how prosecutors handle themselves is important.

Meanwhile, we can all continue to punish him (and her) with media coverage, opinioning in blog posts and elsewhere because he and his country of France choose not to submit to California's request that he serve time. If he did serve time, would the media and Joe-Smith-opining stop? Probably not.

"She says: "I did something

Anonymous PP — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:28:51 +0000

In reply to It's more like there's a

"She says: "I did something wrong, I was stupid… To pose topless, and to drink and to take the [sleeping] pill." Here I disagree - by default, 13-year-olds are too likely to make bad decisions and that's why we protect them to a large extent. The whole point of "topless", "drink", "pill" was a steady path at manipulation and slow surrender, the inability to say no and have it stick with a persistent middle-aged man.

[if it was about the girl who drank herself into a coma and then the kids around her molested her and posted photos, yes, I think that girl did something stupid, even though it doesn't justify the response by presumed friends]

This wasn't getting into a car with a stranger - this was going for a modeling tryout with an industry professional. Gaultier, Galliano, Lagerfeld deal with tons of underage aspiring models each year, and I imagine topless might be required as part of the changing, or see-through tops and after-hours parties are part of the landscape - more the reason for the adults to protect the underage talent, not be their #1 predators. At least the casting couch is typically for legally adult females - a sordid decision, but one they're presumably more mature to make.

Ah, finally you produce an

Anonymous PP — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:14:39 +0000

In reply to I can't believe you're still

Ah, finally you produce an article relevant to the question. Yes, *if* the story of what was agreed is wrong, then that obviously changes the conclusions (does not change that it was drug-induced rape). Whether this synopsis contains all the pertinent info re: any background discussions, promises, etc., I don't know. [e.g. I don't know if there's a game of "even though you've pled to a certain arrangement, we'll still act as if we can do what we want until we deliver on what we implied", or if this case was differrent from a typical plea bargain, etc...]

I can't believe you're still

ocean-kat — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:59:55 +0000

In reply to Polanski dealt with the legal

I can't believe you're still hanging onto this dumb ass argument. I'd like to see Cheney tried for war crimes. The fact that its not going to happen doesn't mean all rapists should receive a get out of jail free card.

As for the rest of your nonsense.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/10/02/the-lost-polanski-trans...

No matter what his lawyers expected no judge is required to accept a plea deal. Polanski could have withdrawn his plea at any time and gone to trial to be judged by a jury.

Polanski dealt with the legal

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:58:32 +0000

In reply to Well hell then, nobody should

Polanski dealt with the legal system - he was in jail/psychiatric evaluation for 1 1/2 months as part of his . Not a lot, but more than Scooter Libby, much less Dick Cheney., Karl Rove, others who leaked & lied.

Polanski accepted his guilt - Libby still maintains he's innocent. Polanski even returned from Europe to go to jail for the psychiatric evaluation as part of the process. Note, I don't in general accept fleeing the US just because someone might face prison - frankly I would suggest minimum 3 months as a wakeup call for him & others, but I didn't strike the deal. It's the sudden change of the judge after Polanski's playing by the rules that bothers me and makes me not care about Polanski leaving.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he traveled to Europe to complete filming.^[27] Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days.^[28] Polanski's lawyers had the expectation that Polanski would get only probation at the subsequent sentencing hearing, with the probation officer, examining psychiatrist, and the victim all recommending against jail time.^[29] The documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired alleges that things changed after a conversation with LA Deputy District Attorney David Wells and the judge. Polanski's attorneys assert that the judge suggested to them that he would send the director to prison and order him deported.^[5] In response to the threat of imprisonment, Polanski bought a one-way ticket to England and fled the United States.^[2]