Roman Polanski, Hollywood, and Justice

[shira]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: shira
The judge, however, changed his mind a day before the sentencing date because (he reported) he was concerned about how such a light sentence would reflect on him. And he said he was going to instead sentence Polanski to 50 years in jail.

Supposedly. It's just an accusation and means nothing and is put into some suspicion after another prosecutor has admitted to lying.

This information I cited didn't come from the prosecutor. I haven't even seen the documentary. I'm assuming that what the victim's attorney stated is correct.

Look, if it turns out that the plea deal did NOT include an agreement by the judge to sentence Polanski to time served, then I'm all for sentencing Polanski to whatever the law allows that is also consistent with the actual plea deal.

The point I'm making is as much as people want to see Polanski fry, an agreed-to plea deal ought to be binding on all parties. If the deal really WAS for no additional time (or for very little additional time), then people ought to accept the deal for what it was: letting Polanski off easy in return for sparing a young girl additional trauma.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: shira
The judge, however, changed his mind a day before the sentencing date because (he reported) he was concerned about how such a light sentence would reflect on him. And he said he was going to instead sentence Polanski to 50 years in jail.

Details on the news related to the Swiss turning down any release has that P was supposed to have 90 days pych evaluation as a result of the plea bargin.

After about 45 days, he was declared competent and released by the evaluation team.
The judge wanted him to serve the full 90 and was going to order prison time for the remaining time that he wsa supposed to be under evaluation.

P fled.

Read the victim's attorney's account (from 2003) in the other thread. He said that the judge stated that he was going to sentence Polanski to 50 years, but that he'd consider reducing the sentence if Polanski "self-deported" himself.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: shira
The plea agreement among the prosecution, defense, and the judge was that (a)
The judge, however, changed his mind a day before the sentencing date because (he reported) he was concerned about how such a light sentence would reflect on him. And he said he was going to instead sentence Polanski to 50 years in jail.

What it boils down to is that Polanski fled, not because the judge had in fact engaged in any misconduct but because he feared that the judge was about to do so.

In that case, his remedy was appeal. Pure and simple. The likelihood that a sentence of 50 years would have been upheld was very small...not to mention the fact that he would have probably been allowed to remain free on bail during the appeal.

I agree with you.

In this particular case, the external objective was to spare the young victim the ordeal of a trial. This was the primary desire of the victim's family. I think that such an objective was worthwhile. Do you?

It may have been worthwhile but not necessarily decisive.

Polanski abided by his side of the agreement (the flight from the U.S. is a separate issue) and the young girl was not further traumatized.

In as much as Polanski appeared to have been unwilling to live up to his civil agreement, thereby exposing her to more publicity when she had to go to court again, I'm not sure I would agree that he abided by his side of the agreement. In fact, I'd say that protecting the girl from the ordeal of public exposure proved to be a somewhat misguided consideration.

The civil agreement was reached, I believe, 15 years later, when the girl was 28 or 29, and the woman voluntarily revealed her identity - she could have remained anonymous. So any publicity she encountered was entirely her own doing.

The 13-year-old's only action subsequent to the rape was her grand jury appearance. So the strategy of keeping her out of the aftermath was pretty much successful. I'm not sure why you think that objective was misguided - do you have any idea what she would have been subjected to on the stand by the defense if this case had gone to trial in 1978?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: shira

Thus, if Polanski is extradicted, he should be sentenced under the original agreement - to time served. But he SHOULD be prosecuted on the flight charge.

I could live with that. Either way he dies in prison.

Nonsense. Flight from sentencing is not a life term. I'm guessing two years.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: shira

Thus, if Polanski is extradicted, he should be sentenced under the original agreement - to time served. But he SHOULD be prosecuted on the flight charge.

I could live with that. Either way he dies in prison.

Nonsense. Flight from sentencing is not a life term. I'm guessing two years.

I believe the max is five years, but yeah it's unlikely he'll serve the max.