So...Roman Polanski.

[Big Swami]

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

[Hermy]

France.

[Tahoe]

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

[Uncle Mxy]

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.

[geerussell]

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.

[Tahoe]

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. ???

[Big Swami]

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?

[Fool]

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

[Tahoe]

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

[Uncle Mxy]

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?