Movie Forums (http://www.movieforums.com/community/index.php)
-   Actors, Awards, & Directors (http://www.movieforums.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Swiss detain Roman Polanski (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=20784)

Powdered Water 09-27-09 05:45 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
It's not cut and dried that he's returning to the states either. Extradition is dicey at best even in the more sophisticated societies. He's being held right now and from what I've read is already appealing this in the Swiss court. So, we'll see.

nebbit 09-27-09 07:41 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
I am a big Fan of Roman :yup: but he needs to pay for his sins like everyone else :yup;

Holden Pike 09-27-09 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by nebbit (Post 570249)
I am a big Fan of Roman :yup: but he needs to pay for his sins like everyone else :yup;
Jeepers, I didn't realize he was being extradited to The Vatican. Here I was thinking this was a late 1970s California legal matter. :indifferent:

jrs 09-27-09 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by nebbit (Post 570249)
but he needs to pay for his sins like everyone else :yup:
So does that mean we all should be detained by the swiss? :laugh:

rufnek 09-27-09 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Powdered Water (Post 570134)
I think its total bullsh*t and the United States should be ashamed of itself. If this is supposed to be about the victims (which it isn't) then this should have long been forgotten. Instead, we'll most likely have yet another media circus.
It's never about the victim; it's about the violation of law. Polanski admitted he violated the law, but then ran rather than have sentence executed. Had he stayed for sentencing and served his time, it would be all over by now. How tough would the California court system be on a famous movie director? Look at subsequent treatment of stars in the California justice system. The case has been prolonged only because Polanski ran. He did the crime. He admitted to the crime. He fled from the crime. It's his own fault.

Personally, I think it's his own fault in spades after he came back to the US for that awards program a few years ago, which was like thumbing his nose at the law. According to one account I read, the US resumed actively seeking Polanski's extridition in 2005.

Powdered Water 09-27-09 08:14 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
And yet another person who has absolutely ZERO knowledge of the facts of the case or what actually happened, apparently.

mark f 09-27-09 08:14 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Polanski hasn't been in the U.S. for over 30 years.

Tacitus 09-27-09 08:20 PM

I think that for those of us who've either seen the Wanted and Desired doc (which I have) we probably have come to the conclusion that Polanski was running from the judge... I am, though, (to gasps from the audience, no doubt :p) no lawyer and enjoyed a film which sought as much balance as it could. Just like me, though, Wanted and Desired hasn't passed its bar exams. ;)

Nevertheless, the only matter about the case itself which seems to be in doubt is the question of consent.

Even if things were consensual (and I'm not saying they were), they were consensual in the mind of a 13 year old child... I don't think I need to spell things out any clearer.

Yes, the case turned into a show trial and yes, everyone should be entitled to a justice system free from prejudice. Maybe he'll get the opportunity for a balanced hearing if the extradition goes ahead.

rufnek 09-27-09 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by tramp (Post 570182)
I forgot to add that I think Polanski should get a new trial where I guess he would have to plead not guilty even if he had plead guilty before. I wonder if that is how it will play out. I get the feeling he deserves a new trial and if the victim won't testify, what would happen then?

There was a documentary where the prosecutor stated that he didn't blame Polanski for running. While he committed a crime, it wasn't fair what happened to him and I also think that is important.
In a criminal case, the victim doesn't have a choice about testifying if the prosecution wants to put her on the stand and the judge doesn't rule against it for some unusual reason. The prosecution has the right to call the victim as a witness and, if the witness is uncooperative, treat her as an unfriendly witness. She can purposely be a lousy witness, but she still has to answer the prosecutor's questions, and if the witness says something contrary to the sworn statements she gave earlier, the prosecution has the option to charge her with perjury. The law is not something a private citizen--not even the victim--can turn on or off like a faucet. If you report a crime and the police take your statement and begin an investigation and the DA's office files charges, then the case takes on a life of its own. You come back later and say, "I didn't mean it,, I was only kidding" and you open yourself to criminal charges of filing false reports and perjury. I know of one case where a guy went to jail because as a lark he identified a buddy as a suspect being sought by police. Just playing a joke on a friend, but he was jailed for knowingly filing a false report.

Holden Pike 09-27-09 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by rufnek (Post 570259)
Personally, I think it's his own fault in spades after he came back to the US for that awards program a few years ago, which was like thumbing his nose at the law. According to one account I read, the US resumed actively seeking Polanski's extridition in 2005.
For someone who prides themselves on a newsman's grasp of the cold hard facts and the minutiae of the historical record you have shockingly few correct here. He did not come back to the United States for an awards show or any other reason (and he won the frippin' Oscar in absentia). In 1997 after Polanski's attorney and the original Prosecutor brought the original Judge's actions to a new Judge, a verbal deal was struck between the parties that Polanski would return to Los Angeles, be booked and immediately released on bail, meet with the Probation Department, have a probation report ordered, conduct a hearing on said report, and have the probation officially terminated then and there without any additional jail time or legal consequences. When Roman discovered this would be an open hearing that would be televised (on the new Judge's insistence) and another surefire media circus, he declined. He also doesn't feel especially trustful of the American legal system for some reason.

But yes, continue to believe what you will! Why should facts muddy the waters of righteous indignation? They rarely do.

rufnek 09-27-09 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by Powdered Water (Post 570185)
For all of you people that keep saying he "ran from the law" you really need to look into the whole thing a little deeper.

He DID NOT run from the law. He did in fact go through the entire legal process. It wasn't until the very end of the case when he and his attorney realized that he was going to be "made an example of" did he leave the country.

I strongly urge you all to see Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. There is a lot more to this case than simply. "Oh that's the dude that fled the country yeah?"
The thing about the law is that the defendent doesn't get to decide if the sentence is right or not, or fair or not or whether he should do time or not. If he failed to show up for sentencing or failed to surrender himself after being sentenced, then he did indeed run from the law. Period. Your statement "It wasn't until the very end of the case when he and his attorney realized that he was going to be 'made an example'" sounds to me that they were anticipating a sentence rather than reacting to one. But one cannot claim a sentence is unfair until the sentence is given. Even then, a good attorney could have gotten him out on bail while the sentence was being appealed. If it were an illegal or cruel or unusual sentence or if Polanski did not get a fair trial, then a higher court could set it aside. As it was, Polanski did not exhaust his legal options; he just grabbed an outbound flight to escape justice. I've yet to hear that any attorney has appealed on the grounds that he was not fairly tried or received a cruel or unusual sentence. He simply decided on his own not to serve time and ran.

Besides, I question just how "unfair" the original court was or how determined it was to "make an example" of Polanski if the judge didn't even order him to surrender his passport while out on bail. Or did Polanski obtain a fake passport to make his escape? Certainly he should not have done anything to elude justice on the advice of his attorney as that would open his attorney to disbarment and criminal charges.

42ndStreetFreak 09-27-09 08:45 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
they were consensual in the mind of a 13 year old child... I don't think I need to spell things out any clearer.
Far from your normal 13 year old girl though. Sexually she was somewhere in her late teens and had a shocking sexual history thanks to her Christ awful upbringing if memory serves.

But yes, she was still 13 and Polanski has to pay for that in a fair way with everything taken into account.

Tacitus 09-27-09 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by 42ndStreetFreak (Post 570278)
Far from your normal 13 year old girl though
I don't think that matters a fig, to be honest, even if it's true, although I think you agree judging by your final sentence. :)

I don't wanna get all "if it happened to my 13 year old I'd cut his swingers off" Daily Mail channelling, though, but the fact remains I do have a 13 year old daughter who thinks she's oh so mature. She's probably more mature than I was at that age but that just means she doesn't laugh at fart jokes. :)

Powdered Water 09-27-09 08:51 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
I love how people in the world today are so consumed with "justice". "He needs to pay!" "He should pay!"

He did pay, he was also jailed. For God's sake rufnek. Your points are completely empty because you apparently only have a very rudimentary knowledge of what happened.

rufnek 09-27-09 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by Holden Pike (Post 570270)
For someone who prides themselves on a newsman's grasp of the cold hard facts and the minutiae of the historical record you have shockingly few correct here. He did not come back to the United States for an awards show or any other reason (and he won the frippin' Oscar in absentia). The reason they've been trying to get him back recently is that after the documentary that was very clearly damning of the Judge and his clerk, the current Court in California was more or less shamed into just saying, 'Come back, we'll have a hearing, pronounce the time served, blah-blah, and it'll be over with'. When Roman discovered this would be an open hearing and another surefire media circus, he declined. He also doesn't feel especially trustful of the American legal system for some reason.

But yes, continue to believe what you will! Why should facts muddy the waters of righteous indignation? They rarely do.
Jeeze, Pike, I guess I missed that issue of People magazine. I only recalled there was whoopla at some point about whether or not he would return to the US. I thought it unlikely myself. But between that point of will he/won't he and his current apprehension, I've given zero thought to Polanski.

For that matter, I never claimed inside or comprehensive knowledge of Polanski's chase beyound current news reports that he pled guilty to his crime. If that's not the case, then like Bogart in Casablanca, "I was misinformed." My remarks are addressed to the fundamentals of the law, which none of Polanski's fans want even to acknowledge. I do find odd your statement that Polanski wanted to avoid a "media circus," seeing as how he has been at the center of one ever since his escape. A movie person who abhors a "media circus"--now that is unsual.

As for "righteous indignation," I leave that to you and his other fans, seeing as how I really don't give a flying f**k what happens to Polanski. Bring him back, don't bring him back--it's all far short of a truly historic moment.

42ndStreetFreak 09-27-09 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by Tacitus (Post 570280)
I don't think that matters a fig, to be honest, even if it's true, although I think you agree judging by your final sentence. :)

I don't wanna get all "if it happened to my 13 year old I'd cut his swingers off" Daily Mail channelling, though, but the fact remains I do have a 13 year old daughter who thinks she's oh so mature. She's probably more mature than I was at that age but that just means she doesn't laugh at fart jokes. :)
Anyone can put me straight...But if I remember from the Documentary she was virtually pimped out at parties by her Mother.
I'm not saying she was simply a 'mature beyond her years' 13 year old...I'm saying she was a sexually active, sexually experienced, messed up 13 year old.

Powdered Water 09-27-09 09:02 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
@ rufnek

You say you don't give a **** and yet here you are spreading around a bunch of misinformation and somehow trying to give out a sermon on the law? I don't buy it.

rufnek 09-27-09 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by Powdered Water (Post 570281)
I love how people in the world today are so consumed with "justice". "He needs to pay!" "He should pay!"

He did pay, he was also jailed. For God's sake rufnek. Your points are completely empty because you apparently only have a very rudimentary knowledge of what happened.
I don't recall ever saying anything about someone needs to "pay" or should "pay." I just don't buy that Polansk was so mistreated by the law that he had to flee and "suffer" all these years being fawned on all over Europe.

I reiterate, I couldn't care less whether Polanski does time or not. But don't play like a big-name movie celebrity with a high-priced lawyer was being railroaded by a California court!

jrs 09-27-09 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by rufnek (Post 570284)
I've given zero thought to Polanski....

I really don't give a flying f**k what happens to Polanski. Bring him back, don't bring him back--it's all far short of a truly historic moment.
Perfectly said. ;)

Holden Pike 09-27-09 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by rufnek (Post 570284)
For that matter, I never claimed inside or comprehensive knowledge of Polanski's chase beyound current news reports that he pled guilty to his crime. If that's not the case, then like Bogart in Casablanca, "I was misinformed." My remarks are addressed to the fundamentals of the law, which none of Polanski's fans want even to acknowledge.
Yes, you are broadly applying some fundamentals of the law as you understand it to a 1977 California case with very specific laws, which is of little use in a discussion of the Polanski case. But it sure is fun to speculate and assume!


Originally Posted by rufnek (Post 570284)
I do find odd your statement that Polanski wanted to avoid a "media circus," seeing as how he has been at the center of one ever since his escape. A movie person who abhors a "media circus"-- now that is unusual.
Yes, I know Paparazzi following you out of a restaurant and the attention on the red carpet of a movie premiere are roughly analogous to a criminal court proceeding...oh, wait.


All times are GMT -3. The time now is 08:45 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright Movie Forums