If the rape victim refuses to testify and tell the truth and nothing but the whole truth, she can be held in contempt of court. Besides, hasn't he already confessed to the 3 rapes?
Director Roman Polanski taken into Swiss custody on 1978 U.S. arrest warrant
- Thread starter alexmst
- Start date
Yes, but he's challenging it. His (possibly valid) claim is that he only plead guilty because of the terms of the plea bargain, which were not honoured. Potentially he could get a new trial if he successfully argues that point. Obviously if he thought his chances of that were very good he would not have fled, but he's entitled to due process of law.
You're right that technically the victim can be charged with contempt of court, but I find it hard to believe that will happen. First, do you really think a judge is going to charge a rape victim with contempt? Second, if she simply says she can't remember, how would you go about proving that she does remember?
Not to change the subject but I thought Erwin Rommel was one (if not the only one) of the rare humane officers in the Third Reich.
I'm surprised there was never a bounty put on this piece of shits head? He's allowed to live in France, a US ally, for 30+ years and is never arrested? What makes me even more sick is that he's still making movies, and winning awards the entire time he was a fugitive!
If this was anyone else, they would be in jail and isolated from the rest of the inmates since those violent inmates despise child molestors. When they get released, the neighbourhood in which they are moving to would be notified there is a "reformed" child molestor who just moved into their part of town.
As for his now 45 year old underage rape victim, of course she'll say that she forgives him and she wants it to be over. He paid her a large sum of cash for her to shut up. Any rape is evil and disgusting, and when it happens to someone who is still very young, I can picture it being even more traumatizing. This guy is a piece of shit, plain and simple, and I hope he fucking dies!
If this was anyone else, they would be in jail and isolated from the rest of the inmates since those violent inmates despise child molestors. When they get released, the neighbourhood in which they are moving to would be notified there is a "reformed" child molestor who just moved into their part of town.
As for his now 45 year old underage rape victim, of course she'll say that she forgives him and she wants it to be over. He paid her a large sum of cash for her to shut up. Any rape is evil and disgusting, and when it happens to someone who is still very young, I can picture it being even more traumatizing. This guy is a piece of shit, plain and simple, and I hope he fucking dies!
Did someone say Kobe Bryant? Of course, the rich will say what is the point of being rich and famous if you can't rape at will?
I would be interested to see how far his claim re the judge jumping the plea bargain goes. America has a different plea bargaining system than Canada and I don't understand its rules.
In Canada, a judge is allowed to "jump" a plea bargain - i.e hit the accused harder than was arranged with the Crown on the plea deal - under certain limited circumstances. If the judge goes overboard or outside those limitations, the Court of Appeal can over rule him and resentence the case. However, an accused in Canada cannot withdraw the plea unless there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the facts or charges the accused has agreed to plead to.
An accused cannot withdraw a plea in Canada, just because the judge hits him harder than was agreed.
In Canada, a judge is allowed to "jump" a plea bargain - i.e hit the accused harder than was arranged with the Crown on the plea deal - under certain limited circumstances. If the judge goes overboard or outside those limitations, the Court of Appeal can over rule him and resentence the case. However, an accused in Canada cannot withdraw the plea unless there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the facts or charges the accused has agreed to plead to.
An accused cannot withdraw a plea in Canada, just because the judge hits him harder than was agreed.
Not sure what is the right answer but a judge recently overrode the "negotiated settlement" between BofA and the SEC. Don't all plea bargains have to be court approved?
I thought the reason for the original lenient plea bargain was to spare the 13 year old the truma (check spelling) of a trial.
a few points
1. as several have pointed out he pled guilty and then fled, so there's no statue of limitations. Technically he still owes at least the judge's sentence plus time for fleeing.
2. his reason for fleeing is of no consequence. A judge is under no obligation to accept your plea deal. It varies state to state whether your guilty plea is still accepted. In some states even if the judge rejects the plea deal your guilty plea is still valid and the judge can then sentence you to any sentence the law allows for what you have pled guilty to. I don't know the law in California so I can't comment if the original judge's actions were within his scope.
3. If he did get a new trial, any sentence that he would receive would take place according to the laws at the time he commited the crime. You cen't serve more time than the law dictated at the time you commited the crime.
But his flight to europe is a different question, I'm not sure how that works since he was actively breaking the law on that one up until this year.
4. If there's a new trial and the victim refuses to testify, technically the judge could charge her with contempt of court. It rarely happens that a victim is charged with contempt, if a victim is unwilling to testify they usually try to arrange a plea deal to a lesser charge or won't proceed with the trial.
5. As others have said, whether or not a victim forgive their attacker is technically irrelevant. Society, through its legislators, has decided what punishments we want for various crimes. After all, you might forgive your attacker but the rest of us still have to live in the same neighborhood/town/state/country as him. However, obviously, a victim's forgiveness can be taken into consideration.
1. as several have pointed out he pled guilty and then fled, so there's no statue of limitations. Technically he still owes at least the judge's sentence plus time for fleeing.
2. his reason for fleeing is of no consequence. A judge is under no obligation to accept your plea deal. It varies state to state whether your guilty plea is still accepted. In some states even if the judge rejects the plea deal your guilty plea is still valid and the judge can then sentence you to any sentence the law allows for what you have pled guilty to. I don't know the law in California so I can't comment if the original judge's actions were within his scope.
3. If he did get a new trial, any sentence that he would receive would take place according to the laws at the time he commited the crime. You cen't serve more time than the law dictated at the time you commited the crime.
But his flight to europe is a different question, I'm not sure how that works since he was actively breaking the law on that one up until this year.
4. If there's a new trial and the victim refuses to testify, technically the judge could charge her with contempt of court. It rarely happens that a victim is charged with contempt, if a victim is unwilling to testify they usually try to arrange a plea deal to a lesser charge or won't proceed with the trial.
5. As others have said, whether or not a victim forgive their attacker is technically irrelevant. Society, through its legislators, has decided what punishments we want for various crimes. After all, you might forgive your attacker but the rest of us still have to live in the same neighborhood/town/state/country as him. However, obviously, a victim's forgiveness can be taken into consideration.
Thanks, some very insightful comments. Will a victim's forgiveness still be given consideration when it is "bought and paid for"?
He could appeal his deportation in Swiss courts and stay in Switzerland for a while, possibly get bail while appealing it.
As for the victim, most likely her civil settlement that paid her off has a clause saying she should not press for his jailing. If she took the money and let him buy her silence that is her choice. I'm not moralizing over it. Rape is a crime against a person...if that person who is the victim wants to take money not to report it at all, that is their choice. Obviously this girl didn't want money in exchange for not reporting it as she did report it and he was arrested for it. Once he was on the lam she decided the money would be nice, so let him pay her off. If she had wanted money from the get go, he never would have been arrested at all. So, if she wants to take money to not want to participate in the future legal process agianst him, I feel that his her right. Now, once she reported it, technically it is the justice system which decides whether to seek punishment, and it is out of the victim's hands. Just becasue she doesn't want to partake of the prosecution anymore doesn't mean the D.A/Crown has to listen to her. In reality though, if he wins a new trial and she says she doesn't remember anything anymore of the attack, the D.A. will plead it out or not go to trial as without a witness who remembers the details of what happened, how could they possibly get a conviction?
I still think the community service teaching film studies to UCLA students is the best way to plead this out after 30 years in this case, provided the victim no longer wants him jailed. If she wants him jailed, send him to jail. It should be her call as he raped her, not the judge or the state of California. The D.A. should ask her what she wants.
I had to have a think on this one. In the end, it's about the justice system and due process. He made it a farce of it - he fled, gained extra fame and fortune while a fugitive, and he paid her off. On a simple level, this means those with resources can avoid justice with money. And that's wrong.
What made me think about this one is "Was punishment met and therefore justice served?" That is can there be an alternative form of punishment other than incarceration - basically a financial penalty given to the victim in lieu? Don't know; it is practiced is some eastern legal systems. The victim's support of his cause is misplaced (and bought) and is not part of the acceptable justice system that he was found guilty under.
What made me think about this one is "Was punishment met and therefore justice served?" That is can there be an alternative form of punishment other than incarceration - basically a financial penalty given to the victim in lieu? Don't know; it is practiced is some eastern legal systems. The victim's support of his cause is misplaced (and bought) and is not part of the acceptable justice system that he was found guilty under.
I'm not aware of the BofA v SEC case. AFAIK, a Canadian judge does NOT have to approve a plea bargain or civil settlement, although both are often negotiated under the supervision of a judge and in that case, the court is pretty much obliged to go along with them.
I'm not sure what the legal standard for extradition is in Switzerland. In Canada, it's pretty low. The requesting country just has to show the existence of some evidence on which the trial court could properly convict. As the guy has already pleaded and is taken to admit the allegations, this would be a given.
(Obviously, different considerations would exist if the requesting country was some notorious Third World freak show like Afghanistan or Zimbabwe.
(Obviously, different considerations would exist if the requesting country was some notorious Third World freak show like Afghanistan or Zimbabwe.
My stingy part
The Swiss have an extensive appeals process, so it could take a few months before he's extradited. If at all
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090927/ap_on_en_mo/eu_switzerland_polanski
More here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/roman-polanski/
Obviously, the Americans WANTED this guy. They went to allot of trouble to get him. So, based on that, you can pretty much bet that he's going to get time and they aren't going to let him out this time while he's awaiting sentencing. Who knows, they may even make an "example" out of him.
As to the Swiss, my guess is that the Americans gave them something they wanted. Whatever that might be.
As to the Swiss, my guess is that the Americans gave them something they wanted. Whatever that might be.
Although I entirely understand the point you are making, and not to add confusion to it, however, I thought it should be pointed out that Field Marshal Rommel has never been implicated in crimes against humanity. Indeed he was part of the plot against Hitler - hence his forced suicide.
France does not allow the extradition of French Nationals. Further to the best of my knowledge, France did not prosecute him in France, because what he was accused of in California was not at the time a crime in France.
For Americans read the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office.
According to The Times
For a more French take on all this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6851562.ece
Oh yeah, they wanted him. The long arm of the law. Polanski is going to do time, not just for fucking a drugged up 13 year old (bad enough) but for fleeing the American Justice system. Just like with Martha Stewart (it wasn't the crime that got her, it was the lie), they are going to say "it's not fucking the 13 year old that we are jailing you for 5 years, it's running away from the law."
He's going to get 3 to 5. Watch.
He's going to get 3 to 5. Watch.
