No, I noticed and commented about it as well but then again I'm one of those "pond scum lawyers."
Polanski attitudes poll
- Thread starter Aardvark154
- Start date
and if the lady/girl/child is fed booze and drugs she may be unable to say either!
Gramage I'm afraid you are Naïve. You are accused of a crime you didn't commit. The Crown offers you a plea of community service and no time incarcerated. If you go to trial you may be sentenced to 25 years full sentence to be served. Which do you take? Honest Crowns and D.A.'s and A.U.S.A's try NOT to offer defendants they strongly believe are innocent such Hobson's choices but does it happen - it does.
There is not guilty, and there is innocent, and there is did not commit the crime. . . .
Under the U.S. Federal Rules it is and in many states as well. However, I'm unsure about California at that time, and so far have not been able to find an answer to the question.
But is it? Do we really want the consequences of a system where every single case goes to trial and every single Defendant has no choice of pleading guilty to a lesser included offense but is faced with either the maximum penalty or nothing?
In most U.S. States that counts as Rape/Gross Sexual Assualt due to inability to give consent.
In the hypothetical you give me I lie and say I did it, but the risk I would know I was taking is that if that plea bargain fell through and I had admitted guilt I would not expect anyone to believe I was innocent, because no one should believe in the innocence of anyone who pleads guilty.
And to the Asterix's point, I've always assumed part of the sentence of being found guilty when you plead not guilty is that you lied. I realize as I write that and read it out loud how stupid that is, but that makes sense in my head silently.
And to the Asterix's point, I've always assumed part of the sentence of being found guilty when you plead not guilty is that you lied. I realize as I write that and read it out loud how stupid that is, but that makes sense in my head silently.
Think a little further. People have a right to protest any charge brought against them. People who have been entirely innocent have spent years in jail. As an example, over 130 inmates on death row in the US since the early 1980's have since been exonnerated by new evidence, much of it DNA. I have no doubt there have been many over the years who weren't so lucky when they had nothing to do with the crime they were being charged. On the other hand, people who are guilty as hell who plead not guilty sometimes get their freedom with nary a scratch. Alot of it comes down to representation and how much you can spend, but again, to protest what you have been accused of is a right regardless of what case the state can bring against you.
Latest CNN tidbit. Both the LA DA and the Cali Court of Appeal say that RP will go straight to sentencing court.
It's CNN, so I'm not sure if that indicates that they will listen to arguments only going to sentence or in eventual appeal of sentence and whether they have already decided that RP has no shot at striking out the guilty plea for judicial misconduct. CNN can be a little vague.
Another interesting point: If the accused skips bail for a prolonged period of time - i.e 30 years - and this impairs the state's ability to present its case - i.e. witness die or lose their recollection - should that accused be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and force a trial, even assuming he has grounds to do so??
It's CNN, so I'm not sure if that indicates that they will listen to arguments only going to sentence or in eventual appeal of sentence and whether they have already decided that RP has no shot at striking out the guilty plea for judicial misconduct. CNN can be a little vague.
Another interesting point: If the accused skips bail for a prolonged period of time - i.e 30 years - and this impairs the state's ability to present its case - i.e. witness die or lose their recollection - should that accused be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and force a trial, even assuming he has grounds to do so??
In the course of looking into this I saw that there was case law precedent in California on this point. And, of course the Swiss aren't going to fight about this, such as the French did with Pennsylvania over Ira Einhorn's extradition.
Give me a break, he was more than THREE TIMES her age. This is not a case of a 19 year old who thought his girlfriend was 18. This is a 45 year old fucking a child.
I have never seen a 13 year old who could be mistaken for a 20 year old. Maybe there are some rare few people out there like that, and for those rare few then you might have a point. For the other 99.999% of the population I have no fucking sympathy.
If someone looks like they might be under 20 make damn sure you know their age. Don't take their word for it.
Period.
Moreover in THIS particular case he had been in contact with her mother. He knew she lived at home with her parents. He probably already knew her age when he fucked her.
The guy deserves to live out the rest of his life behind bars and it's a crying shame that he has been out on the loose these past 30 years.
ZURICH, Switzerland (CNN) -- Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar and Martin Scorsese have "demanded the immediate release" of fellow filmmaker Roman Polanski, who was arrested in Switzerland on a U.S. arrest warrant related to a 1977 child sex charge.
They were among 138 people in the film industry who signed a petition against the arrest."The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance ... opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects," said the signatories, who also included actresses Monica Bellucci and Tilda Swinton and directors David Lynch, Jonathan Demme, John Landis, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and Wim Wenders.
In the United States, powerhouse movie producer Harvey Weinstein is trying to recruit more supporters for Polanksi.
"We are calling every filmmaker we can to help fix this terrible situation," his company told CNN in a statement.
Prosecutors have consistently argued that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow a man who "drugged and raped a 13-year-old child" to go free.
--------
Well, as much as I like Woody Allen's films (probably my favourite living director) I wouldn't want him to be my lead cheerleader in a morality case lol. Harvey 'There is no problem that money can't fix' Weinstein also wouldn't help me sway the moral thoughts of the nation.
They were among 138 people in the film industry who signed a petition against the arrest."The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance ... opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects," said the signatories, who also included actresses Monica Bellucci and Tilda Swinton and directors David Lynch, Jonathan Demme, John Landis, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and Wim Wenders.
In the United States, powerhouse movie producer Harvey Weinstein is trying to recruit more supporters for Polanksi.
"We are calling every filmmaker we can to help fix this terrible situation," his company told CNN in a statement.
Prosecutors have consistently argued that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow a man who "drugged and raped a 13-year-old child" to go free.
--------
Well, as much as I like Woody Allen's films (probably my favourite living director) I wouldn't want him to be my lead cheerleader in a morality case lol. Harvey 'There is no problem that money can't fix' Weinstein also wouldn't help me sway the moral thoughts of the nation.
The Ira Einhorn case is another stain on France. Not only does France send its men to foreign countries to rape their children but France protects foreign murderers who escape to France. Kill someone in the U.S., flee to France. Shame!
Let's not mince words. ROMAN POLANSKI IS AN ADMITED PEDOPHILE AND RAPIST! He said he had sex with a 13 year girl in an interview and he seem proud of it.
Answer to OAGRE's Question
"What would you guys have done?"
Gone home. When a 13 year old is my date and I'm 43, I'm gone - fast.
And she testified she kept saying no. If the female says no I don't go. 13, 18, 45 or 80 years old.
Why?
Because OAGRE, that's the definition of RAPE for which Polanski should go to prison now. We guys would have spent a decade or more in the penitentiary for that behavior. Polanski too.
"What would you guys have done?"
Gone home. When a 13 year old is my date and I'm 43, I'm gone - fast.
And she testified she kept saying no. If the female says no I don't go. 13, 18, 45 or 80 years old.
Why?
Because OAGRE, that's the definition of RAPE for which Polanski should go to prison now. We guys would have spent a decade or more in the penitentiary for that behavior. Polanski too.
Do I understand correctly: many people think that a person, taking pictures of a young girl for Vogue Magazine, has her parent deliver her for a photo session, and doesn't verify the model's age?
Today, nobody would begin to snap pictures (fully clothed or no) until two items of ID were produced, and the model release signed (by the Parent or legal Guardian if under 18).
And people think this is a new development since 1977?
This, IMAO, tends to amplify the charge of administering a controlled substance (the quaalude) and rape.
Today, nobody would begin to snap pictures (fully clothed or no) until two items of ID were produced, and the model release signed (by the Parent or legal Guardian if under 18).
And people think this is a new development since 1977?
This, IMAO, tends to amplify the charge of administering a controlled substance (the quaalude) and rape.
Okay, my newest bright idea on this thread:
Does anyone have any idea of the extent to which the movie studios might have influenced the DA into going soft on the plea deal? After all, they are LA's largest and most prestigious employer and RP was still a Hollywood studio director at that time and a "hot property". (IIRC, Chinatown had only recently won several Oscars.)
I have been previously following the assumption that the girl's credibility may have been flawed. OTOH, there may have been pressure on the DA to get RP out of jail - as in "immediately"!
Does anyone have any idea of the extent to which the movie studios might have influenced the DA into going soft on the plea deal? After all, they are LA's largest and most prestigious employer and RP was still a Hollywood studio director at that time and a "hot property". (IIRC, Chinatown had only recently won several Oscars.)
I have been previously following the assumption that the girl's credibility may have been flawed. OTOH, there may have been pressure on the DA to get RP out of jail - as in "immediately"!
Cycleguy007
Banned
All the legal mumbo jumbo aside
And putting aside all the "age differential" issues... The guy ADMITTED to raping a human being! That in and of itself is enough to convict. The fact that he drugged and violated the victim 3 times (orally, vaginally and anally) makes if all the more disgusting and the fact that his victim was a child makes it reprehensible!
Lock him up and throw away the key!
And putting aside all the "age differential" issues... The guy ADMITTED to raping a human being! That in and of itself is enough to convict. The fact that he drugged and violated the victim 3 times (orally, vaginally and anally) makes if all the more disgusting and the fact that his victim was a child makes it reprehensible!
Lock him up and throw away the key!
And putting aside all the "age differential" issues... The guy ADMITTED to raping an human being! That in and of itself is enough to convict. The fact that he drugged and violated the victim 3 times (orally, vaginally and anally) makes if all the more disgusting and the fact that his victim was a child makes it reprehensible!
Lock him up and throw away the key!
Now, wait. Did you not agree that he should have a fair trial?
And actually, he did not admit to raping her. He agreed to plead guilty to rape in
return for being set free. Quite a difference.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
