Are there any excuses in the world that justify the fact that he's not in jail?

France.

I think the girl, who is now a lady, recently said, move on.

I think the girl, who is now a lady, recently said, move on.
Of course, her thinking might have been contaminated by Roman Polanski's dick, or the civil suit settlement he made with her years later, or her parents who wanted to drop it at the time to avoid the publicity (which was deemed worse than the actual rape).

My favorite excuse is: He already served his time, having agreed to a plea deal for time served (plus probation and therapy) with the prosecution. He fled because the anti-Semitic judge was planning to override the plea deal. The interesting questions to me are:

- Should judges be able to ignore sentencing guidelines for plea deals with no prosecutorial recourse? The plea bargaining system is as helpful to them as it is the other aspects of the system.

- Should the prosecution have ever agreed to a light plea deal with Polanski in the first place? Why wasn't deportation a condition of the plea bargain, if nothing else?

- Is plea bargaining ever really a "good" thing, or simply an expedient thing?

The part I don't get is why was a fugitive from U.S. justice allowed to do productive business in the United States for 30 years.

For me it's the bailjumping, not the particulars of the crime that is the sticking point. Even though a lot of years have passed, letting someone completely off the hook for that would really undermine the system, which relies heavily on the deterrent effect of being punished harshly for jumping bail or escaping custody.


Is plea bargaining ever really a "good" thing, or simply an expedient thing?

Good and expedient. In addition to reducing the number of trials clogging the system, it's one of the main levers that prosecutors have to leverage low level criminals against higher level ones.

They were saying he was offered 40 days in jail, 30 years ago? I hope I didn't hear that right. They also said he gave her qualudes, etc.

So some legal xspurt said he may be able to come back and accept the prosecutions offer of 40 days. The courts might have to abide by that offer. ???

Basically, here's what happened:

The guy gave alcohol and quaaludes to a 13-year-old girl, then raped her in every orifice of her body. I know it's ugly, but that's what happened. He then plead guilty to the charges because he thought he was bargaining for a light sentence. I don't know how you get "time served" for that kind of situation, but the guy definitely needed to go to jail.

It doesn't matter that the judge was a Jew-hater. He took a look at that plea deal and said, "there's no fucking way," and he was right to do so. When the sentence changed, Polanski hit the road and never came back.

The victim can say she forgives him all she wants. The justice system should take that into account, but it should never base its entire decision on that. That 13-year-old girl he anally raped is no longer the only victim here, the victim is the American rule of law and by extension all of us.

To me, the question isn't about the judge or the fact that Roman Polanski survived the Holocaust or that he has French citizenship or that the victim forgave him or any of that shit. The questions are as follows:

A. Did he repeatedly rape a 13-year-old girl after drugging her?
B. Did he admit that he did it?
C. Did he flee sentencing?
D. What kind of punishment is appropriate for a man who does these things?

Indeed. Dude has been prolonging his ass being spread for Big Jake in cell 5 for too long. Time to pay the piper.

I also heard the "He's 78" argument and "he's no longer a danger to society"

Good and expedient. In addition to reducing the number of trials clogging the system, it's one of the main levers that prosecutors have to leverage low level criminals against higher level ones.
Then why do so many politicians still have jobs clogging up the system? ;)


The guy gave alcohol and quaaludes to a 13-year-old girl, then raped her in every orifice of her body. I know it's ugly, but that's what happened. He then plead guilty to the charges because he thought he was bargaining for a light sentence. I don't know how you get "time served" for that kind of situation, but the guy definitely needed to go to jail.
Jail is a "law" thing.

I'm not sold on the idea that the law is the proper remedy for child-raping fuckheads.

Real justice might call for something more extreme. Say, put Polanski in a cage with Manson and let 'em fight it out. Make it an online event and sell ads -- proceeds go to victims. To be clear. the reason I don't think he should be in jail is because I'd want to kill him, put him out of his misery and ours. If the Holocaust and his wife's murders fucked with his head and tortured his soul so much that he did that, then he doesn't belong with the living anymore.

But, if we're going to put such heinous things in the context of the law, we should either do it right, or don't do it.


It doesn't matter that the judge was a Jew-hater. He took a look at that plea deal and said, "there's no fucking way," and he was right to do so. When the sentence changed, Polanski hit the road and never came back.
It's always going to be tainted. The judge should've recused himself at the get-go, before he ever heard the plea deal. When the law doesn't operate properly, sometimes the guilty go free. That's why the legal system needs to be highly functional and not prone to fuckitude.

For people who think 40 days or 90 days or whatever is a stupid sentence for Polanski's crimes, what things broke down with our system and how would you fix it?

It's not outside of a judge's power to set aside a plea agreement.

For people who think 40 days or 90 days or whatever is a stupid sentence for Polanski's crimes, what things broke down with our system and how would you fix it?

Mandatory sentences for child rapists.

Even 17yr olds that "rape" 15 year olds?

Not if they're in a relationship

Who get's to decide that?

I also heard the "He's 78" argument and "he's no longer a danger to society"
He's shown that he is a danger to US fugitive law for the last 30 years. He's shown that he has no regard whatsoever for the crime he committed, and someone that incapable of remorse is certainly capable of committing other felony acts.

Who get's to decide that?

Me

^the Decider

Being 78 doesn't mean you can't rape another girl (even if you need a pill to get it up). He's still a danger IMO.

And I wasn't making that argument, some peeps did.

Mandatory sentences for child rapists.
That only works when a prosecutor chooses to charge for rape. The charge that Polanski was plea bargaining to was relatively minor.

There's an awful lot of discretion that a prosecutor has on what to actually prosecute. Perhaps there's too much. We have lots of prosecutors throwing charges at all levels simply to find something that will "stick" and (in many cases) as a mechanism to coax or calibrate a plea deal.


It's not outside of a judge's power to set aside a plea agreement.
If a judge sets aside a plea bargain, should they permit the defendant's plea to be withdrawn?

That only works when a prosecutor chooses to charge for rape. The charge that Polanski was plea bargaining to was relatively minor.

There's an awful lot of discretion that a prosecutor has on what to actually prosecute. Perhaps there's too much. We have lots of prosecutors throwing charges at all levels simply to find something that will "stick" and (in many cases) as a mechanism to coax or calibrate a plea deal.


If a judge sets aside a plea bargain, should they permit the defendant's plea to be withdrawn?

If the prosecutor doesn't charge for rape in a case like this, his/her ass should go to prison along with the perp

If a judge sets aside a plea bargain, should they permit the defendant's plea to be withdrawn?

I don't know but defendants should be told they are "bargaining" for a recommendation from the prosecutor. Judges are the one's sentencing them in these cases even if they do take the prosecutor's recomendation.

It depends on how you define "rape".

Here's a recent local case of relatively minor sexual deviancy -- indecent exposure. Lots of people are praying for the guy to get life imprisonment over this because he raped someone and got away with it. They're doing everything they can with a relatively minor crime to compensate for past legal failings, rather than address the legal failings or accept as necessary.

http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2009/09/26/news/srv0000006486110.txt

Sounds kinda like OJ.

Wasn't this guy involved in the Miner deal?

If a judge sets aside a plea bargain, should they permit the defendant's plea to be withdrawn?

The judge gives the thumbs up/down on the plea deal before any plea is entered so that wouldn't be an issue.

The judge gives the thumbs up/down on the plea deal before any plea is entered so that wouldn't be an issue.

That depends on the nature of the plea bargain. If the plea bargain involves a fixed sentence, sure a judge is involved. If it just involves _charges_, that's not true at all. That's why the judge may ask questions about being coerced, why the defendant would have to explicitly withdraw a plea, etc. Remember, judges have a lot of better things to do, and certainly don't have to talk with attorneys over plea bargains.

The reality in many cases is that a judge can sentence you to any amount of time they damn want. Plea down the charges, and the judge doesn't like, and poof -- you can get 30-to-life for a crime where 1-2 years is the sentencing guidelines. A whole lot of plea deals involve a "wink and a nod" (a.k.a. prosecutor recommendation) to a judge who may not care at all, sometimes for valid reasons (sentence too light) and sometimes because they just don't like the defendant (too Jewish).

Remember, even if you're innocent, you don't necessarily know what sort of evidence the prosecution has, and you might be offered a considerably good plea deal. Do you take the probable light sentence of 90 days, or gamble on "maybe no sentence (after months of the legal system) vs. 25-to-life"? For some types of crimes, proving a negative can be hard (e.g. was the sex consensual vs. rape?).

I'm not suggesting the judge sits down and talks with the lawyers when the deal is being negotiated. What does happen though is at the moment in the courtroom when it's time for the defendant to enter a plea, the judge is going to have the plea agreement sitting in front of them and look at the terms. If a judge thought the deal was too light, that would normally be the time when the objections were made known, not "Surpise! 30-life" at sentencing.

I understand that there is always the possibility for a rogue judge or prosecutorial misconduct and don't mean in any way to minimize how awful it is when people get abused by the system, falsely accused, wrongly imprisoned or even executed. Hopefully you have enough transparency and accountability in the system to weed out the bad actors but it's never going to be perfect.

To me the alternative, statutes and mandatory sentences that tie a judge's hands or circumvent the court system entirely with administrative punishments is worse. I'd much rather err on the side of including the human factor with a good degree of latitude than rigid statutory automation.

If a judge thought the deal was too light, that would normally be the time when the objections were made known, not "Surpise! 30-life" at sentencing.
The judge doesn't make objections, the judge makes the sentence. In most cases he's not legally bound to accept the plea bargain and the defendant's admission of guilt is still valid even if he does not.

The judge doesn't make objections, the judge makes the sentence. In most cases he's not legally bound to accept the plea bargain and the defendant's admission of guilt is still valid even if he does not.

Judges can and do make objections. When a plea agreement is put in front of them with a sentencing agreement that they don't think is reasonable they don't normally wait until sentencing and ambush you. They throw the plea agreement back and tell the prosecutors to negotiate something more acceptable,.

Also, the judge isn't bound to accept any sentencing recommendation but if you plead down to a lesser charge and that specific, lesser charge is what you admit guilt to, then the judge is bound by that. He can't, for example, come back at sentencing and give you 25-to-life when you plead to a charge that carries a maximum of ten years.

In that sense, pleading down the charge absolutely does bind the judge as far as the worst that can happen.

So is this about who watches more Law & Order?

Also, the judge isn't bound to accept any sentencing recommendation but if you plead down to a lesser charge and that specific, lesser charge is what you admit guilt to, then the judge is bound by that. He can't, for example, come back at sentencing and give you 25-to-life when you plead to a charge that carries a maximum of ten years.

In that sense, pleading down the charge absolutely does bind the judge as far as the worst that can happen.
There's generally enough leeway on the maximum sentencing at the felony end where it doesn't matter what you plea to if a judge wants to fuck with you. Remember, stuff like serving sentences concurrently is at the judge's option...

What the sentencing guidelines are really for involves overturning. If you go outside the guidelines, the appeals court can take pity on you. If you don't, it's not possible to appeal the length of the sentence.

So is this about who watches more Law & Order?

Gla wins the thread.

My knowledge is almost totally L&O based.

I only wish my knowledge of the legal system was obtained from TV.

Mxy is so mysterious