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)

rufnek 09-27-09 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by Powdered Water (Post 570289)
@ 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.
Pike has already pointed out and I acknowledged my major mistake in relying on my faulty memory in thinking Polanski has ever returned to the US.

If I'm wrong on the points of law I quoted, please feel free to do your own search of the law books and refute my mistakes point by point. It's been a long time since I covered felons in Texas courts. Maybe the law has changed or is different in the Kingdom of California.

Let’s see, I said:
“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.”

I also said:
“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.”

In another post, I said:
“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.”

Sorry, I don't see that as saying anything other than Polanski should have given the legal system a chance to play itself out rather than skipping bail and escaping to Europe.

Powdered Water 09-27-09 08:17 PM

Fine, if you want to get all technical how about this?

Originally Posted by rufnek (Post 570259)
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.
He was sentenced. He did serve his time. The judge "changed his mind" and was going to give him more time. What does your extensive knowledge of the law tell you about that? A judge can just ignore procedure and do whatever he wants? How many times in your history of following the courts in Texas did you see something like that?

Tacitus 09-27-09 08:17 PM

If you'll allow me to quote you selectively. ;)

Originally Posted by 42ndStreetFreak (Post 570288)
I'm saying she was a ..... messed up 13 year old.
Which is why I don't think it matters a jot how 'experienced' she was. Anyway, this is gonna go round in circles and isn't as much fun as the "Burn him!" and "Don't burn him!" stuff.

Does Roman Polanski weigh as much as a duck?

rufnek 09-27-09 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by Powdered Water (Post 570297)
Fine, if you want to get all technical how about this?



He was sentenced. He did serve his time. The judge "changed his mind" and was going to give him more time. What does your extensive knowledge of the law tell you about that? A judge can just ignore procedure and do whatever he wants? How many times in your history of following the courts in Texas did you see something like that?
What you're saying is a procedural impossibility. There is no judge in the land who can "change his mind" after imposing a sentence. Once the sentence is entered, it is set in stone unless overturned by an appellate court. If the sentence has not yet been entered, then it has not yet been passed and has no official standing, whether the judge has "made up his mind" or not.

It is possible that the defendent and the prosecution agree to a plea which the prosecution then presents to the judge, but the judge maintains the authority to accept or reject that plea. If he accepts, he imposes the sentence reccommended by the DA's office. If he rejects it, the defendent then has the right to withdraw his plea and seek a trial by his peers.

If, as you say, Polanski "served his time," the sentence for that original offense cannot be extended, not even for bad behavior while serving his time ("bad behavior" merely reduces one chances for earlier parole, but once a full sentence is served the prisoner is free. Period. Until he commits another crime.) If what you claim actually happened, the appelate court of Califorina would have long ago set aside that judgement or his attorney could have taken it to the US Supreme court in Polanski vs. California. Basically, if a sentence had been entered and if Polanski had served the time sentenced, (time incarcerated prior to trial does not apply to the sentence unless the judge says so) the case would not still be open and California would not have the authority to seek his detention. Nor would the Swiss or anyone else detain him without documented facts that a warrant was in force. Check the law, which is basically the same in any state. As presented, your interpretation of the "facts" just doesn't hold up.

jrs 09-27-09 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Tacitus (Post 570298)

Does Roman Polanski weigh as much as a duck?
The largest duck can weigh up to 7 kilograms (or about 15 pounds) so I doubt it. :nope:

Used Future 09-27-09 10:45 PM

Crikey! since I left to watch a movie this thread has gotten like an episode of Perry Mason.

Powdered Water 09-27-09 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by rufnek (Post 570318)
What you're saying is a procedural impossibility. There is no judge in the land who can "change his mind" after imposing a sentence. Once the sentence is entered, it is set in stone unless overturned by an appellate court. If the sentence has not yet been entered, then it has not yet been passed and has no official standing, whether the judge has "made up his mind" or not.
Maybe that's my error then. I may very well be mistaken in saying he was sentenced. I think I'm confusing the time he spent in jail doing the psyche eval as his actual sentence. If so I hope you're right about it being a "procedural impossibility" because I need to be able to believe that at least some of our justice system isn't corruptible.

It is possible that the defendent and the prosecution agree to a plea which the prosecution then presents to the judge, but the judge maintains the authority to accept or reject that plea. If he accepts, he imposes the sentence reccommended by the DA's office. If he rejects it, the defendent then has the right to withdraw his plea and seek a trial by his peers.

If, as you say, Polanski "served his time," the sentence for that original offense cannot be extended, not even for bad behavior while serving his time ("bad behavior" merely reduces one chances for earlier parole, but once a full sentence is served the prisoner is free. Period. Until he commits another crime.) If what you claim actually happened, the appelate court of Califorina would have long ago set aside that judgement or his attorney could have taken it to the US Supreme court in Polanski vs. California. Basically, if a sentence had been entered and if Polanski had served the time sentenced, (time incarcerated prior to trial does not apply to the sentence unless the judge says so) the case would not still be open and California would not have the authority to seek his detention. Nor would the Swiss or anyone else detain him without documented facts that a warrant was in force. Check the law, which is basically the same in any state. As presented, your interpretation of the "facts" just doesn't hold up.
This is why it can be so frustrating to talk to you sometimes. If you would just take the time to watch the great documentary perhaps you'd at least understand why people such as myself are extremely frustrated. All of your points are valid of course and yet there is so much more to the story. You tend to always try to demonstrate how cut and dried a situation is but in this instance I don't think that's the case.

I doubt you will though, because as you say, you don't really give a f*** about him in the first place. You should though, the trial (what there was of it) was laughable. And when the Prosecuting attorney himself states that Polanski should have left the country then that screams to me that something was terribly wrong with the whole proceeding.

TheUsualSuspect 09-27-09 11:06 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Polanski? Oh that's the dude that fled the country yeah?

rufnek 09-27-09 11:33 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
According to the Associated Press, Polanski was arrested for having sex with an underage girl, whom he had hired as a model for a photo shoot at Jack Nicholson's house while the actor was away. He was accused of giving her part of a Quaalude pill and champagne, taking her into a hot tub and having sex with her. Polanski was initially indicted on six felony counts and faced up to life in prison. Instead, he pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and the other counts were dismissed. The maximum sentence he could have faced was 50 years, although prosecutors had said at the time that the typical sentence was 16 months to three years in prison.

The report said Polanski reached a plea deal in 1978, but "was threatened with more prison time than previously agreed upon" and fled to France before he was formally sentenced." Which means to anyone who has ever covered criminal court cases or watched a season of Law & Order that the DA and the defense attorney worked out a plea agreement that the judge refused to go along with. Only the attorneys are involved in working out the details of a plea, but it doesn’t mean a damn until the judge approves it when it is presented in court. It’s totally up to the judge whether or not to accept a plea or order the case to trial, and obviously the judge, now deceased, did not accept it. That left the case open with no sentence yet entered or served.
According to AP, “Polanski's long-running legal saga gained new momentum late last year with the release of an HBO documentary, ‘Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,’ which claimed misconduct by the now-deceased judge who handled 1977 case and reneged on a plea deal. With the new evidence presented in the film, Polanski sent a team of lawyers to court in Los Angeles seeking dismissal of the charges [which acknowledges there has been no decision or sentence in the case]. But despite acknowledging ‘substantial misconduct,’ [the report didn't say by whom] a judge ruled that Polanski would have to appear in person to pursue his motion [not unusual in the case of a fugitive]. Polanski's lawyers said he decided not to risk arrest on a fugitive warrant, and planned instead never to set foot in the United States.
The AP report quoted: "The big issue is whether it would have been better for him to negotiate a surrender when he had the chance," Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson said. "Now it has become an international incident and the district attorney may be under pressure not to negotiate a sweetheart deal. They've gone to all this trouble of getting Switzerland involved. It could make it harder on him."
Nevertheless, some believe the arrest of the 76-year-old Academy Award winner could lead to a resolution that will allow him to once again travel freely.
"I think he will finally get his day in court," criminal defense attorney Steve Cron said, "and there's a good chance his case will be dismissed or the sentence will be commuted to time served."
The report noted, “It's also not clear how hard authorities was searching for him. The Swiss Justice Ministry said in a statement that U.S. authorities have sought Polanski's arrest around the world since 2005, although he has been a fugitive much longer. "There was a valid arrest request and we knew when he was coming," Swiss Justice Ministry spokesman Guido Balmer told The Associated Press. He rejected the idea that politics may have played a part in the action.”
The report also quotes US authorities as saying, “It was publicized on the Internet that he was going to be at the Zurich Film Festival. They were selling tickets online."

What that report tells me is that my assessment of the letter of the law was right on. It also tells me the US hasn't been looking for Polanski very hard in recent years and that something that happened in the last 4 years, even before the HBO program, caused his case to heat up. I suspect that, being small potatoes as a criminal, Polanski would have continued to fall through the cracks if not for all the new international cooperation to track down terrorists and other fugitives. Meanwhile, the appellate process can be long and is extremely political. Some European country a couple of years back refused to extradite some scum-bag who murdered his live-in and stuffed her in a trunk years earlier until the US promised not to seek the death penalty. There was a teenager here in Houston that killed a shop-owner in a botched holdup--on tape--and then fled to Israel on his folks' dough to claim protection against political prosecution. Didn't work-Israel bounced him back. But the process takes time, and lots of countries today like to thumb their noses at Uncle Sammy, especially when other European nations are officially requesting mercy for poor Polanski.


So I'm willing to bet money, marbles or chalk that Polanski is never extradited (unless Switzerland can trade him for a break on being forced to repatriate Nazi gold to the Jews who were killed in the theft of it). If the Swiss have the backbone to extradite him after the initial hoopla dies down, Polanski can probably get off with a sweetheart deal that puts it all behind him, gives him another 15 minutes in the spotlight, and frees up his travel arrangements. He might even get a new movie out of it. And if he does, good for him!!! It's the American Dream of fame and fortune by turning lemons into lemonade.

rufnek 09-28-09 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by Powdered Water (Post 570323)
Maybe that's my error then. I may very well be mistaken in saying he was sentenced. I think I'm confusing the time he spent in jail doing the psyche eval as his actual sentence. If so I hope you're right about it being a "procedural impossibility" because I need to be able to believe that at least some of our justice system isn't corruptible.


This is why it can be so frustrating to talk to you sometimes. If you would just take the time to watch the great documentary perhaps you'd at least understand why people such as myself are extremely frustrated. All of your points are valid of course and yet there is so much more to the story. You tend to always try to demonstrate how cut and dried a situation is but in this instance I don't think that's the case.

I doubt you will though, because as you say, you don't really give a f*** about him in the first place. You should though, the trial (what there was of it) was laughable. And when the Prosecuting attorney himself states that Polanski should have left the country then that screams to me that something was terribly wrong with the whole proceeding.
Sorry, I don't get HBO. So I've never had access to the documentary. But you're right--I'd come closer to watching a documentary on how to cure athelete's foot than about Polanski--it would be more relevant.

So you see me demonstrating how cut and dried a situation is instead of bleeding over poor Polanski. I on the other hand hear everyone making wrong assumptions about how the court system works and the power of judges, and I try to point out the realities of the law. The simple truth is that if Polanski had remained for trial or accepted whatever sentence the judge handed down, this would have all been over decades ago. And hell, even Fatty Arbuckle got acquited of charges in his sex trial as did Errol Flynn way before the permissive 1960s-1970s.

The smart thing would have been for Polanski to ask for a trial by a Los Angeles jury and then bring in Jack Nicholson and Angelica Huston and 50 other movie stars to testify about him and how he had been distraut all those years over the murder of his wife and the time spent in Nazi death camps, and by the end of the trial the star-struck jurors would have put the rape-vicitim in juvenile detention and lauded Polanski as Big Brother of the year for trying to save her soul. Even if it had gone against him, the documentary as described seems to give him good grounds for an appeal, so the system likely would have worked in his favor. And let's face it, he was the adult in the relationship; he really should have shown some level of moral responsibility and self-denial.

As it is, he's now front-page news for the first time in years. He could work out a sweetheart deal in advance, come back, shed a tear in court and have all his transgressions forgiven, and then get a star spot on every talk show couch for the next 2-3 months.

Powdered Water 09-28-09 12:19 AM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
We're definitely in agreement there. I doubt very much that he'll be extradited as well. And it angers me to think of how many more tax payers dollars are going to be wasted on however many more press conferences and whatever else is needed to properly demonstrate what a terrible man Polanski is.

Holden Pike 09-28-09 03:58 AM

Originally Posted by rufnek (Post 570332)
Sorry, I don't get HBO. So I've never had access to the documentary. But you're right--I'd come closer to watching a documentary on how to cure athelete's foot than about Polanski--it would be more relevant.
The documentary premiered theatrically. Of course it has long since been available on DVD everywhere...even in Texas. Cable television not required.

*and spoiler alert: flip-flops in public showers and locker rooms will help avoid foot issues in the first place.


As it is, he's now front-page news for the first time in years. He could work out a sweetheart deal in advance, come back, shed a tear in court and have all his transgressions forgiven, and then get a star spot on every talk show couch for the next 2-3 months.
Yes, once again you've demonstrated that you know quite a lot about Polanski's specific public personality. He is such a media junkie, and always has been. He'll probably extradite himself back to Los Angeles, no matter what the Swiss decide, just so he can be on "Dancing with the Stars" next season. You may not remember, but back after his wife was savagely murdered and their unborn child ripped from her mutilated womb by Charles Manson's followers he did a full month of co-hosting "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In". What a ham!

jrs 09-28-09 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by Holden Pike (Post 570359)
..Cable television not required.
It premiered on HBO back in June of 2008. So yeah, he did miss it when it aired on cable.

nebbit 09-28-09 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by Holden Pike (Post 570250)
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:
That is soooo funny :nope:

Iroquois 09-28-09 09:34 AM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Forget it, everyone. It's Switzerland.

42ndStreetFreak 09-29-09 07:36 AM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Seems Polanski is going to stupidly fight an extradition.
Just get it over with, get it sorted out so you can move on, you foolish little man!

regnif 09-29-09 11:46 AM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
hmmmm, so i guess i wasnt the only one who thought that there was always something f***ed up about his look...

beelzebubbles 09-29-09 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by 42ndStreetFreak (Post 570705)
Seems Polanski is going to stupidly fight an extradition.
Just get it over with, get it sorted out so you can move on, you foolish little man!
Ever been to jail?

jrs 09-29-09 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by beelzebubbles (Post 570829)
Ever been to jail?
Have you?

42ndStreetFreak 09-29-09 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by beelzebubbles (Post 570829)
Ever been to jail?
No.
Sure it's not meant to be too groovy though.
Polanski best not **** any 13 year old girls then...OOOPS! Too late!


Better to get this sorted, who says there will even be any prison time anyway, as the time he may serve will not be that long now and its better than facing the rest of your life (he's an old guy now) still as a fugitive. A film making fugitive who can't even collect his own Oscar no less.


All times are GMT -3. The time now is 06:20 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums