-
USPS: Radical Surgery Needed
May 17, 2013 | 20 comments
-
No Fisker for Your Garage
April 22, 2013 | 50 comments
-
A Breakthrough in Ukraine?
April 17, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Thatcher Passes
April 8, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Moving Ukraine’s Democracy Forward
March 13, 2013 | 8 comments
Eminentoes
Justice Delayed
Why Roman Polanski cannot win.
It looks as if film director Roman Polanski still thinks he is above the law. This week he launched a publicity offensive, charging California authorities with various errors in their effort to extradite him from Switzerland to face sentencing on a 33-year-old case in which he pled guilty, then fled the country just before being sentenced.
Recently, Polanski’s lawyers thought they were getting him a get-out-of-jail-free card when they petitioned California’s 2nd District Court of Appeals that he be sentenced in the child sex case while he is under house arrest at his home in Gstaad, Switzerland. No such luck.
By turning down the famous director, the court, in effect, paved the way for Swiss authorities to honor California’s extradition order and send Polanski back to the Golden State to face justice — at last.
In 1977 Polanski had sex with a then-13-year-old girl. Under California law, it was statutory rape, though he pled guilty to a lesser offense. Shortly before his sentencing in Los Angeles he fled to France and has never returned. Washing his hands of this act of cowardice, he has continued making films and garnering awards. Indeed, it was when he went to Switzerland to accept an award last year that he was arrested on the strength of the extradition request.
The Swiss locked him up for four months. Then, since early this year the authorities allowed him to stay in custody under house arrest at his comfortable digs in Gstaad. The Swiss Ministry of Justice said it would delay a decision on extradition until after the California courts had ruled. While Polanski’s lawyers may appeal the latest ruling to the state supreme court, their case isn’t a strong one. Nevertheless, even if such an appeal were to prove to be a fool’s errand the lawyers would remain well paid by their famous client.
Polanski’s victim, now a middle-aged woman, has publicly asked that the courts “turn the page” on the matter. If he had been sentenced and served whatever time was required, the matter would have been put behind all parties several decades ago. As it is, justice has been delayed for 43 years and, as the saying goes, “justice delayed is justice denied.”
Why did Polanski do it in the first place? For the same reason Eliot Spitzer patronized call girls, Mark Sanford carried on an affair with a Buenos Aires mistress and John Edwards sired a child with a campaign videographer: hubris, ego, self-importance, a sense of complete entitlement. Fame had made their heads swell to the point where they believed they were immunized from society’s norms. As has been shown many times, however, whenever a famous person decides that the rules to not apply to him, reality is always just around the corner.
Polanski is now 77 years old. If he is extradited and the sentence is limited to time served (42 days of an original evaluation in California and the several months in Swiss custody) plus, say, a year more in a California prison, and he publicly admits his guilt and apologizes to his victim, justice will finally have been served.
About the Author
Peter Hannaford was closely associated for a number of years with the late President Reagan, beginning in the California Governor’s office. His latest book is Presidential Retreats.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (120) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Peter Hannaford
More Articles From Eminentoes
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/07/justice-delayed
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- The Vast and the Tiny
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
anon| 5.7.10 @ 7:00AM
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, right or justice.
Magna Carta (1215) Clause 40. Limits the power of Kings from absolute rule.
Does this have any relevance to California and Federal law today?
Cut to 8 centuries later - 2010.
Just as it was outrageous for the Catholic Church, to put the untarnished reputation of its priesthood above children’s sufferings, so too those who put their faith in artists should realize that they too have no special claim to being beyond good and evil.
But as Polanski never claimed this, and admitted his crime paid his dues and thus Polanski wins, because he is not a hypocrite, and is by far – the lesser of two evils.
In fact Polanski may not be evil at all. Polanski may even be really good.
However California & Santa Monica Judges lose out here because they – in not being beyond evil, parallel the Bishops in covering up sexual molestation cases, within their own Rank & File.
In addition California Justices and the County of Los Angeles District Attorney's office are not jumping to investigate Santa Monica Judicial & Prosecutorial Corruption in Polanski’s case which should send up a big red flag.
When Bait and switch justice, illegal coercion in sentencing, is being used this is equivalent to raping criminal defendants & civil plaintiffs. The purpose is so the Officials the County of Los Angeles Judges and District Attorney can be promoted to the higher rank of California Justices and Attorney Generals.
When a sexual molestation victim in a police cover-up case faces police brutality in the Judge’s Santa Monica Courtroom using undocumented white sheriff deputies, to retaliate, intimidate and silence, so the Santa Monica Judge can gain a promotion to become a California Justice in the Second District, this is also abuse of Judicial power.
Finally Federal Judges abuse their power also when they cover up so the reputation of the men in black robes in California can remain untarnished, and so California’s sexual molesters, police cover up con-artists, plus California Justice, judges, prosecutors, police, & thugs will also remain forever spotless in the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind.
CB| 5.7.10 @ 7:18AM
When did Polanski "pay his dues"? He confessed, and then fled before sentencing. I don't think anybody gets away with that. Whether in this country or another, you will eventually be hauled back in front of the judge. Try skipping out of a traffic ticket and see what happens....
PolishKnight| 5.7.10 @ 12:00PM
CB, if you're a woman and lose a custody case and skip out of the country and kidnap your children... you get an awards and time on Oprah.
That's what has happened in the Holly Collins case.
Holly Collins claims to be a victim of abuse along with her children from not just one but _two_ men she fathered children with. Numerous psychologists found her to be unstable. She feld the country and was granted asylem in Denmark where she went on welfare and had MORE children (both natural and adopted.) She was turned in by her neighbor to the FBI.
So you see, men EVERYWHERE are out to get her. Or, maybe she isn't a victim after all.
Hey, why not let Polanski off the hook? There are so many other members of special victim groups out there that get away with rape and kidnapping. Look at Tiger's wife! DV is funny! Haha!
Tom| 5.7.10 @ 1:04PM
Knight,
As a non-custodial father I am well aware of how the deck is stacked against men. And how sometimes justice is not blind for one reason or another. But the simple fact is this: Roman Polanski fed drugs and booze to a 13 year old girl and then anally raped her. No amount of time he spends in jail will be enough.
anon| 5.7.10 @ 5:45PM
Tom's simple fact is untrue, since the only crime is consensual sex with a minor.
The Hollywood police were engaged in sex with minor girl scouts in 1977 so in Tom's skewed world would we not have to put the Hollywood police in jail forever as well...?
For more info See
http://news.google.com/newspap.....&hl=en
Margie| 5.7.10 @ 6:01PM
"anon" the coward and pervert says the "only" crime is "consensual" sex with a minor.
'Nuff said.
anon| 5.7.10 @ 6:39PM
Click the link
http://news.google.com/newspap.....&hl=en
the Judge and Prosecutors said it in 1977 in Polanski's case not me.
Sorry that doesn't tie in with your preconceived notions. Also I resent being called names Margie, and it does not help your false arguments.
Nick| 5.7.10 @ 8:05PM
A minor cannot CONSENT, sicko.
Also, how can ANYONE consent, when given qualudes, pervert lover?
Anon| 5.7.10 @ 9:15PM
A minor can consent Nick. But the act is against California law.
Also consent is not diminished by taking drugs necessarily, but that is not at issue since the crime is consensual sex with a minor.
Just because one is a minor, does not mean the minor is incapable of consent. It is just that it is not legal.
Also I resent your name calling and it distracts from your arguments.
Nick| 5.8.10 @ 12:33AM
Let me guess, you belong to NAMBLA, don't you Anon?
A THIRTEEN year old, boy or girl, does not have the mental and emotional maturity to give consent, perv. This is the reasoning behind statutory rape laws, the inability of minors to give proper consent.
The victim, who was 13 at the time, was given a quaalude with alcohol. This would be date rape, no matter the age of the victim, because she was under diminished capacity.
Finally, she said no. This makes it rape, again, no matter the age.
So, working backwards, if she didn't say no, it is still rape. She was drugged.
If she wasn't drugged, it is still rape. She was under-age.
If she begged for it, it is still rape. She is not mentally mature enough to give consent.
But, the complete opposite is true. Which makes Polanski a dirty....little....child...rapist.
Keep defending him, rape lover. I'm sure Bubba 'The Pervert' Clinton is your hero, isn't he Anon?
Nick| 5.8.10 @ 12:45AM
Also, I could care less what you resent, child rape defender.
anon| 5.8.10 @ 5:00AM
I think you must be a little sick to keep going into a sex scene that you did not attend which occurred 33 years ago.
There are two issues the first issue which you are wallowing in, ended 33 years ago the court moved on a deal was struck and there was Judicial and Prosecutorial misconduct. You can choose to ignore that in your own mind, but others are not willing to see a corrupt Santa Monica Courthouse since Polanski is not the only one that has been victimized by that California Courthouse. Its extremely corrupt not only to criminal defendants but also to victims of sexual molestation...There's a double standard you see.
Nick| 5.8.10 @ 10:11AM
I'll assume from your lack of refutation of any of my points, that you admit you don't know what you are talking about, right, pervert lover?
Why do you post under different monikers (Anon and anonymous), sicko?
Also, at what age would you like to see the "age of consent" lowered to, child rape defender?
anon| 5.8.10 @ 8:52PM
I guess from your calling names you have no good arguments. You might want to take a class in logic before you engage in any arguments Nick
Nick| 5.9.10 @ 12:33AM
I have laid out my arguments, perv lover.
You are the coward who won't defend your previous statements.
Defend your assertion that "[a] minor can consent [...]."
You've posted twice since I eviscerated you and haven't addressed my points once.
All you can do is complain that I call you names.
You know what.....TOUGH!
You are defending a child rapist, sicko.
Conrad Spiracy| 5.12.10 @ 4:03PM
OK - you win.
1) Go out and have sex with a 13 year old (of your gender preference) but call the cops 15 minutes before. Then when caught, tell the cops, "But, but, butt, Roman Polanski..."
2) Consensual sex with a minor was what he pled guilty to, not what he was guilty of. He is still guilty of providing drugs and alcohol to an underage minor - as well as sodomy, rape, perhaps even aggravated assault.....
Perverts in support of Polanski should follow his lead. The only way justice will truly be served is for them to serve REAL time in a prison with all of those understanding fellow (heh-heh) inmates.
Con Spiracy
Bohred| 5.7.10 @ 8:51PM
The woman has given interviews that it was not consensual and that she repeatedly asked him to stop. That is rape. The article you linked was a hit piece put out to make Polanski look less like the child rapist he was. If she was my daughter he would've been in severe physical danger.
Anon| 5.7.10 @ 9:24PM
The woman did give an interview that is true, but it was never tested in a court of law with cross examination by Polanski's lawyers .
This link above and below was not put out to make Polanski look less bad but in fact is the newspaper from 33 years ago 9/20/1977 when a staged hearing took place in the Santa Monica Courthouse California.
More recently the new Los Angeles prosecutors and World Media have been distorting what really occurred in Polanski's case.
http://news.google.com/newspap.....&hl=en
Your last point if she were your daughter and you wanted to harm someone for having consensual sex with your daughter you yourself would be in trouble with the law if you acted on your threat and harm was done...
Bohred| 5.8.10 @ 8:08AM
This article was a hit piece when it was published. Polanski had his people do everything they could to get him out of this. Then he ran. Done deal. If he is so innocent and pure then he can come back and try again.
I have a good friend who lost his marriage over his 15 year old daughter's rape and subsequent abortion. He offered the Fremont Police $15,000 for 5 minutes with the rapist. They hugged him and sent him home. I know better than you the cost of rape.
Conrad Spiracy| 5.12.10 @ 4:05PM
Yeah, I'd do my time.
Butt you'd still be taken care of and my daughter revenged.
Con Spiracy
Alan Brooks| 5.7.10 @ 9:58PM
"The woman has given interviews that it was not consensual and that she repeatedly asked him to stop. That is rape...If she was my daughter he would've been in severe physical danger."
So if Polanski had CONSENSUAL sex with your daughter it would be different? Give us your address, Bohred; we'll come over with a bottle of bubbly and a quaalude.
Bohred| 5.8.10 @ 8:01AM
It would be different if she was over 18.
I would love to give you my address to punch your pedophile face in. Unfortunately the open nature of the internet precludes that. But if you wish to post your address I'll see what I can do.
Alan Brooks| 5.9.10 @ 11:45PM
"I would love to give you my address to punch your pedophile face in."
You are full of it, you really don't want anyone messing with your daughter, even if she is over 18.
Rick Z| 5.9.10 @ 10:12AM
....
There is NO SUCH THING as "Consensual Sex with a Minor".
A 13 year old is too young to be able to give consent. The crime is statutory rape. Feeding the 13 year old drugs and liquor, as Polanski did, makes the crime rape at any age.
Fleeing to another country, escaping justice while out on bail, is also a crime.
There is simply no mitigating fact to keep Polanski out of the slammer.
One purpose of punishment is to deter others. Let Polanski go, and you'll have a raft of felons fleeing.
Goldie| 5.8.10 @ 6:58AM
ALL ABOUT STEVE
At these links the Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley is linked to corruption and retaliation.
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/515.php
According to www.fulldisclosure.net Los Angeles DA Steve Cooley has refused to prosecute pedophiles and child molesters who work in the Catholic Church.
So here's a BIG question - why is the DA Steve Cooley chasing across the world after Roman Polanski now, but yet will not go after the local California Church's sexual molesting predator Priests and those Officials that cover up the sexual molestation crimes at California's institutions?
Could it be if DA Steve Cooley receives political campaign money from the Church, that when the priests sexually molest their victims the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office might turn a blind cheek?
And does the District Attorney think that he can also use foreign celebrities like Roman Polanski - to fan the World media for Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley's own personal campaign in seeking higher office in California.
And who would benefit from Steve Cooley becoming California's Attorney General anyway?
The answer is - only those who are favored such as rich California institutions including churches, and their sexual molesting employees, who may be shielded from Justice if they come bearing gifts.
If the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office is going to hold people accountable for sexual crimes, then there should be no distinction or discriminatory measures where Roman Polanski is selected for prosecution, but the local government & the Church's sexual molesters get a free pass with the Los Angeles District Attorneys' Steve Cooley turning a blind eye.
If this is what is happening, then isn't this strategy only
all about Steve,
what the prosecution or lack of a prosecution can do for Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley in advancing his political career?
Tom| 5.8.10 @ 10:29AM
Ok, what has this to do with Polanski and his crimes? Or are you just looking to bash Cooley? I have no idea whether the allegations of misconduct are true, if they are Cooley should be disbarred and sent to prison, but what does this have to do with extradicting a fugitive from justice? Polanski fled the country prior to sentencing for a crime he admitted, he should serve his sentence and additional time for the flight.
While it would not suprise me to find that Cooley did not prosecute Catholic priests suspected of sex crimes I highly doubt it was for campaign money. Who has more campaign money than Hollywood? And he just blew up his chance to get any of it.
anon| 5.8.10 @ 8:57PM
Polanski faced injustice in the Santa Monica Courthouse in 1977 and 1978 ask his Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson. He has agreed.
So let us get it right. Polanski fled injustice because of the corrupt way the Santa Monica Judge, Judge Laurence J. Rittenband was handling his case, what with staged hearings wheret he outcome was known in advance, and coercion in the sentencing.
Nick| 5.9.10 @ 12:24AM
**ATTENTION NAMBLA MEMBER ANON**
You have alleged that there was Judicial and Prosecutorial misconduct and corruption in this case, as well as others, without one piece of evidence that has been tried in a court of law.
All you have are assertions and suppositions.
You can't even follow your own standards. I believe they call this "being hoisted with one's own petard."
Now, pervert defender, how low would you like the age of consent to be lowered to?
Fourteen? Twelve?
Anonymous| 5.7.10 @ 5:18PM
Selective prosecution, and double standard, which depends on whether there are campaign donations to the district attorney's office in California for more info see
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/515-4.php
Alan Brooks| 5.7.10 @ 9:54PM
if you touch Whoopie Goldberg's young relations the wrong way, off come the family jewels.
Alan Brooks| 5.8.10 @ 2:57AM
The main issue is hypocrisy:
Polanski, Whoopi, etc, almost certainly wouldn't want anyone having sex with their young relatives-- even 17 year olds.
In fact, most people don't like you even looking much at their 18 year old daughters.
Bohred| 5.8.10 @ 8:24AM
Alan we can only do what we can do. Just because some get off, is no reason to abandon the fight for justice.
It seems to me that all you want is to argue your ego and be a contrarian.
Go for it.
The main issue is Polanski raping a 13 year old girl. You obviously are not a father.
Alan Brooks| 5.9.10 @ 11:52PM
"The main issue is Polanski raping a 13 year old girl..."
This is simplistic, Bohred: if the rape victim had been 113 years old in 1977 would you wish to lessen the penalty? Rape is rape, no matter whether the female is 7 or 117.
Alan Brooks| 5.10.10 @ 12:01AM
...The penalty ought to be decades in prison, whether the rape victim is 1 or 101.
Tom| 5.7.10 @ 7:48AM
Polanski may be really good? For drugging a 13 year old girl and anally raping her? Maybe instead of LSD you should try black coffee in the morning.
Your post is so disjointed and rambling that I find it hard to follow BUT are you actually implying the Californian court is seeking extradiction of Polanski to garner for PR purposes and to enhance their careers? Really, in California where Hollywood is damn near universal againt the extradiction. Come on.
Anonymous| 5.7.10 @ 5:30PM
No Tom you are engaging in misrepresentation, and spin filling in your own blanks, plus belittling a person in order to distract from their valid observation. Other readers do not be fooled by Tom.
Roman Polanski has always excelled at exposing corruption in high places, not only in the movies the Ghost Writer, China Town but he has also inspired through his action, others to do so in Polanski: Wanted and Desired
For more information not movie based:
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/515.php
Tom| 5.7.10 @ 5:35PM
So he made some good movies, although none recently. That does not mean he is not morally repulsive. Here is the transcript of the grand jury testimony. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a.....over1.html
Margie| 5.7.10 @ 6:02PM
God bless you, Tom, for speaking the truth.
anonymous| 5.7.10 @ 6:31PM
Is your God the devil? Because Tom is not speaking the truth, and nor is the transcript of the grand jury testimony because that testimony has never been tested in a court of law. And the victim refuses to go any further with this.
Are you going to ask God to bless me for telling you the truth Margie?
It might be godly to stop the blessing until you know who is telling the truth.
Tom| 5.8.10 @ 10:34AM
Anon,
That is indeed the grand jury testimony. I am sorry your lack of understanding of American legal proceedings leads you to believe that a transcript needs to be 'tested in a court of law'. Polanski had his right to his day in court, he turned it down and plead out. While the victim has a right to speak it is important to remember that in a criminal case it is the State vs the defendant not the victim vs the defendant.
Anon, if you think that sex with a minor should not be a crime just say so. Using Polanski as a poster boy for that believe, if you hold it, is disgusting. Because even if you think that 13 year olds can consent, and to me that is bizarre, it is difficult to fathom why you would think that feeding one drugs and booze to deliberately impair judgement is ok.
anonymous| 5.7.10 @ 6:27PM
Sorry Tom that is not evidence. It was never entered into a court of law in a trial. And there was no trial - only a plea bargain agreement where he admitted consensual sex with a minor.
Are your preconceived ideas misguiding your response here?
In america I thought it was that you are innocent until proven guilty
Nick| 5.7.10 @ 6:56PM
You must be so proud, defending a rapist like you are doing here.
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 5.8.10 @ 3:24AM
Right or wrong, a great candidate for the ACLU yes?
Polanski should be punished punitively for avoiding the justice that was to be dealt after his sentencing, perhaps in the form of a fine. Punitive punishments are levied on people who avoid capture by the police all the time, and I see this as having very little difference. :)
anon| 5.8.10 @ 4:52AM
Polanski has already served his time at Chino in 1977 and 1978. The Santa Monica Judge was reneging on the deal so he could get a promotion
You know ALL ABOUT EVE remember that movie!
Bohred| 5.8.10 @ 8:33AM
Even though it has not "been tested in a court of law" it is still evidence. And Polanski admitted guilt. With a generous plea bargain too. In California the victim's wishes have no bearing on a case like this.
The real case is that he ran. He is a fugitive from justice. Nothing can happen until he presents himself in front of a LA Judge.
The man is scum. Why are you defending him? He is able to afford the best legal help on the planet. He doesn't need you.
Tom| 5.8.10 @ 9:49AM
Anon,
Innocent before proven guilty is a legal standard. It does not mean I have to believe Polanski is not a moral degenerate with an eye for young and helpless girls. He is. What I find curious is you post links with information that has never been tested in court and seem to think it is ok. I posted a link of an official court document and I am being prejudiced. Polanski could have fought any and all charges, he did not. Po;anski is guilty of unlawful intercourse with a minor, by his own admission.
There was no court trial because Polanski was too much the coward to stand trial. If he was innocent of all charges he had the means to fight them. He did not knowing what he did. What he did in his professional career is meaningless to me. Who cares if he made some decent, if flawed, movies 30 years ago? He supplied booze and drugs to a 13 year old girl, anally raped her, and fled the consequences of his actions like the two bit coward he is.
Tom| 5.8.10 @ 10:44AM
Sorry Anon, what Polanski plead to was unlawful intercourse with a minor. He did not plead to consenual sex. The reason non of the evidence was subject to a trial was Polanski's pleading out.
You do not understand what evidence is and what it is not. Evidence exists absent a trial.
Official transcripts from a criminal legal proceedings are not good enough for you but you post newspaper and blog articles? Exactly what planet are you from? I could post numerous links to anti-Polanski articles but it would be just as meaningless as your links. Polanski plead guilty to a crime, he fled prior to sentencing, and when returned to California he should jailed for the crime he admitted to committing.
anonymous| 5.7.10 @ 7:23AM
Polanski Paid his dues at Chino in January 1978
For More Info http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/1/23/31436/2767
Richard Baker| 5.7.10 @ 7:25AM
Put him in jail. Period.
anon| 5.8.10 @ 4:53AM
Put the world in jail and the Hollywood police in jail for doing the same thing at the same time
Enough of this holier than thou attitude.
Tom| 5.8.10 @ 10:50AM
Do you have any evidence 'the world' committed unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor? Because I do not recall ever doing so. Perhaps you do.
Bohred| 5.8.10 @ 1:48PM
Oh you Liar!!!
Post your links liar. You say the cops did this, post your links. You are a liar. And you know you are a liar.
Liar, Liar, Liar, oh how I wish we could meet in person.
JamesJ| 5.7.10 @ 7:31AM
Only in the liberal mind is 90 days for drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 13 yr old considered justice.
Liberalism is a disease
Otis, my man!| 5.7.10 @ 8:26AM
To be more precise - a mental disease.
The doctor says so:
http://superstore.wnd.com/stor.....EM_ID=2285
Cheers!
Bill| 5.7.10 @ 9:31AM
Becoming a fugitive because you don't like what you think the judge might sentence you to in your plea bargain is frowned upon in most justice systems.
Polanski has to serve whatever time he'll get under his plea bargain for the rape/sodomy/drugging of the child, plus whatever time he's sentenced to for his run from the plea bargain.
On the other hand, if we're going to give Polanski a pass, how about those priests who abused boys sexually? What kind of a pass should they get? Oh yeah, I forgot, they don't make award-winning movies.
Anonymous| 5.7.10 @ 5:51PM
According to the link below the priests got a FREE pass from California's District Attorney Steve Cooley who is running for attorney General in California. Maybe the church gave him some campaign money in exchange.
For more information on the free pass see:
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/515-4.php
Shamus| 5.7.10 @ 10:03AM
My guess is that Polanski will die in prison.
Anon| 5.7.10 @ 5:52PM
Shame on Shamus and his guesses.
Try kisses instead.
Gimlet67| 5.10.10 @ 4:03PM
No, the best outcome would be for him to be released from prison sentence after being subjected to numerous anal rapes.
Julie | 5.7.10 @ 11:10AM
Please, Mr. Hannaford, use real words. "[C]hild sex charges" could describe anything from touching a 4 year-olds' top to the heinous and depraved activities that Polanski perpetrated upon a 13 year old, whom he had drugged beforehand. Sodomy, rape, oral sex,...the DA allowed him to plead on one charge only to protect the identity of the child. Now that she is no longer a child, does the statue of limitations apply, or could he be charged with all of his crimes again, and kidnapping as well, because she pleaded to be left alone and to leave? Justice will never be served unitl this creepy elitist is jailed for time proportionate to his crimes. Neither victims nor their loved ones determine the law. Which is why it is critically important for the law to be applied equally to everyone, so the power or weakness of those wronged does not affect the outcome. Otherwise, we'd have the Kennedy family running around committing crimes at will.
Oh, wait...
Anonymous| 5.7.10 @ 6:02PM
For more info on pedophile priests who have a free pass for sexual abuse in their Instititutions in California, because of the Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley's failure to prosecute see:
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/515-4.php
Julie said " it is critically important for the law to be applied equally to everyone, so the power or weakness of those wronged does not affect the outcome"
chuck| 5.8.10 @ 9:36AM
Your argument that this sicko should get off(pardon the pun) because of some failure to prosecute in any other case is stupid and childish. It amounts to some kid telling his mother "while Johnny did it, so why can't I?"
Grow up ,asshole.
vb| 5.10.10 @ 7:56AM
Julie, your comment about language is very important. Sexual abuse is perhaps used by some to spare the victims, but it is also used to suggest equivalence where there is none. Anal rape is far more painful and traumatizing that having your genitals touched. It is a far cry from the sex the victim probably had with her boyfriend. This is not to excuse any other type of sexual abuse, be it touching, having kids undress, or oral sex. Anyone who does these things should answer for it and be removed from any access to the young.
The reaction of Hollywood types to Polanski's crime seems indicative of their attitude toward the young. People who applaud the It Takes a Village line must think a bit more about the responsibility of adults for the young. Instead we see the sexualization of children everywhere. Celebrities who want recognition of their cultural contributions should be ashamed.
paul hudson| 5.7.10 @ 11:40AM
One year would be a joke.
The purpose of punishement is to deter, and that is the principle that should be applied. Polanski need to receive a sentence that will deter other wealthy men from drugging and raping. And it needs to be shown that you cant flaunt the law.
His crime is at least as serious as Madoff's, and his attitude after being caught is infintely worse. He needs at least what Madoff got.
Bud| 5.7.10 @ 6:06PM
WB said."Do you really think Polanski's arrest came out of the LA district attorney's office?"
No the first call may have come from higher up because the movie "The Ghost Writer" speaks about Official connections to war crimes and this possibly could have hit an Official sore spot.
And talking of war crimes would you rather be oppressed by being a prisoner in Abu Ghraib,
or by being a young girl in Roman Polanski’s hot tub, which may have been a consensual affair, and thus not true oppression.
or would you rather be oppressed by being assaulted and battered in a Santa Monica Courtroom California by a number of undocumented white County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputies and the African American Police Officer defendant in front of the County of Los Angeles Judge, who is now a California Justice, in the very same Santa Monica Courthouse as Roman Polanski.
for reporting Santa Monica College Officials and their police cover up of sexual assault complaint against a photography instructor that occurred from behind in his color printing darkroom class.
Bottom line is this - the amount of oppression that Roman Polanski could bring is rather minor in comparison to the Abuse of Power and Oppression Officials en masse do create under color of law,
or create through ratifying the "Torture Memos" which then enables Officials to eviscerate people's civil rights regardless of whether the torture occurs behind closed doors at the Santa Monica Courthouse in California, or abroad.
Nick| 5.8.10 @ 12:37AM
Great!
Another rape loving pervert.
Go away Bud, sexual deviants aren't welcome here.
anonymous| 5.8.10 @ 4:47AM
Nick is misrepresenting Bud who does not claim to know what happened Nick seems to have been at Jack's house on March 10 1977. Nick is stone throwing again in the hope of winning an argument.
Nick| 5.8.10 @ 10:13AM
And who comes to Bud's defense?
Another rape loving pervert.
What a shock!
Paul from SA| 5.7.10 @ 1:46PM
If she was my daughter at the time, Polanski would be dead. Where's her father?
Gr0w1er| 5.7.10 @ 4:24PM
No surprises from a typical Hollywood apparatchik. That the so-called entertainment industry gladly accepts him as one of their own should speak volumes to any decent human being.
Marko| 5.7.10 @ 8:10PM
Why doesn't the NYT, for example, use this incident as an opportunity to "raise awareness" of past abuse of girls in the entertainment industry?
Get some case studies out there before the public and repeat this theme over and over until all the long-silent victims come forward.
Oh wait I forgot. That's not gonna happen: the liberal media is in bed with the entertainment industry.
Pete2| 5.7.10 @ 9:26PM
Reading the posts from anon, it is evident he/she is a morally debased individual. Why is anyone even discussing the issue with this thing? Best to leave it alone and just let it ramble on it's perverted postings.
Pede| 5.7.10 @ 9:32PM
Regarding Rich Geniuses...In Film, In California Politics in the Church...
We already know that the LA District Attorney is corrupt. See:
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/515.php
Cooley has refused to prosecute the pedophiles and child molesters that work in the Catholic Church.
Why is District Attorney Steve Cooley going after rich genius Roman Polanski but not after the rich Churches's sexual molesting and Predator Priests?
Could it be Steve Cooley is receiving campaign moneys from the Church to be the next Attorney General of California, and may fee obliged to look the other way?
Why does the LA DA think the taxpayer’s dollars are his and that he can use celebrities like Roman Polanski - to fan the media in Cooley's campaign to seek higher office.
And who would want Steve Cooley to become California's Attorney General if there is a double standard in who he prosecutes
I guess only those who are giving Steve Cooley campaign money or those who are shielded from Justice such as rich California institutions and their sexual molesting employees.
If you are going to hold people accountable for sexual molestation then Justice must be evenhanded.
It should not be to waive prosecution of those who give District Attoreny Steve Cooley political campaign money and to prosecute Polanski for a stale claim, to gain recognition in the World's media.
He said people who commit crimes should be held accountable. Even rich "geniuses" who use their wealth to evade justice for 33 years.
Bill| 5.7.10 @ 10:21PM
Two major flaws instill doubt about the legitimacy of the request to extradite Mr. Polanski.
The first goes to the very aims of criminal law. Those are usually stated as revenge, deterrence, punishment and rehabilitation. Revenge is widely recognized as illegitimate. In Mr. Polanski’s case none of the legitimate aims seem applicable.
As he has not, as far as we know, committed any crimes in the three decades he has been living in France and Switzerland, the objective of deterring him from committing a future crime carries no force.
Nor do punishment and rehabilitation seem applicable. Punishment, like rehabilitation, is meant to be salutary, not vindictive. The purpose of both is to enable the prisoner to return to society and to function in a social setting without committing more crimes.
As Mr. Polanski has been living in Paris for three decades as an apparently law-abiding citizen, those objectives do not come into play. What seems left is revenge.
The second flaw is equally troubling. The extradition request appears to be the first request made since 1978, when Polanski became a fugitive.
Although the Los Angeles district attorney’s office says that over the years it sought information and monitored his travels, it has not once sought his extradition.
If Mr. Polanski had kept a low profile and his whereabouts unknown, there might be a semblance of sense to this explanation for the three-decade delay,
but Roman Polanski is one of the most famous film directors in the world. He has not been in hiding. While it may have been impossible to extradite him from France, he could easily have been extradited from Switzerland long ago.
When there is a decades-long delay by the prosecuting authorities to arrest or extradite that cannot readily or coherently be explained, the prosecutor’s action appears arbitrary.
The arbitrariness is magnified by the fact that the victim of the crime is not motivating the pursuit.
The European Court of Human Rights in the case of Markovic v. Italy noted that “the avoidance of arbitrary power” is the dominant principle that underlies much of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The same principle underlies the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Governmental action should not be arbitrary.
If it is arbitrary, it raises a strong presumption that due process of law has not been respected. The L.A. prosecutor’s decision to extradite Mr. Polanski 30 years after the event must strike Mr. Polanski, and in the absence of some coherent explanation for the delay, neutral observers as well, as totally arbitrary.
Of course there is social value in discouraging criminals from fleeing the jurisdiction. There is value as well in seeing that justice is done and in showing that no one is above the law. But those values can erode over time if the circumstances which gave rise to the need for justice have vanished.
To some, belated enforcement will appear arbitrary, a ritual of form over substance. When the state threatens imprisonment, it must be seen to act in an even-handed manner. If not, it mocks the very rule of law by its arbitrary act to enforce the law.
From
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10......html?_r=1
Nick| 5.8.10 @ 12:41AM
So, Bill, how long have you been into teenage girls.
This is why you are defending the pervert, child raping Polanski, no?
Where's Chris Hanson and his Dateline sting crew when you need them?
Bohred| 5.8.10 @ 8:55AM
Oh my God. What absolute utter garbage.
Just to be real clear; if she was my daughter I would beat Polanski to death with my fists. And then take my punishment.
The state has an interest in supporting it's system of justice. It has an interest in furthering the decisions of it's courts. For no other reason California wants Polanski back.
Let me just refute one little thing. They did not apply for extradition because France does not extradite it's citizens to the USA. You Polanski defenders need to read up on the history of this case.
This has been quite an education for me, I see how biased and baseless the contrarian arguments are.
Bill, all that you say is dross. The man ran. For no other reason California wants him back, and the Swiss will give him back. I would put him in jail for the length of time he ran.
Bohred| 5.8.10 @ 8:57AM
Guys I gotta go cut hay. It's been fun, but this is nonsense. Polanski deserves a severe public beating and a few years in jail. Maybe that will scare a few of these scumbags away from young girls.
Anon| 5.8.10 @ 4:43AM
Nick likes to misrepresent the crime and call people bad names, a bit like throwing stones.
Also Bill believes because someone defends Polanski because they don't like judicial and prosecutorial corruption and that they like fair dealings for everyone in the Santa Monica Courthouse California "is into teenage girls"
I hope you are always dealt with fairly in USA but often this is not the case in California.
For more information on the California District Attorneys office in regards to corruption and retaliation see:
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/515-4.php
And
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....pant-.html
Alot of links to corruption eh?
Nick| 5.8.10 @ 9:59AM
So moronic, you had to post it FOUR times!
I hope someone at TAS reports your IP adress to the police.
anon| 5.8.10 @ 9:05PM
Full of hate Nick. What happened to you?
Nick| 5.9.10 @ 12:02AM
"Full of hate [...]"?
I hate NO ONE.
I do, however, hate the act of statutory rape.
I also hate the act of "date rape."
And all, rape for that matter. All rape is EVIL.
It is a vile crime that I used to believe warranted the implementation of the death penalty, especially child rape.
"What happened to you?"
Nothing.
Have we corresponded in the past?
Have I ever written anything that would give the impression that I am light on crime?
anon| 5.8.10 @ 9:05PM
Full of hate Nick. What happened to you?
Anon| 5.8.10 @ 4:43AM
Nick likes to misrepresent the crime and call people bad names, a bit like throwing stones.
Also Bill believes because someone defends Polanski because they don't like judicial and prosecutorial corruption and that they like fair dealings for everyone in the Santa Monica Courthouse California "is into teenage girls"
I hope you are always dealt with fairly in USA but often this is not the case in California.
For more information on the California District Attorneys office in regards to corruption and retaliation see:
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/515-4.php
And
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....pant-.html
Alot of links to corruption eh?
Anon| 5.8.10 @ 4:43AM
Nick likes to misrepresent the crime and call people bad names, a bit like throwing stones.
Also Bill believes because someone defends Polanski because they don't like judicial and prosecutorial corruption and that they like fair dealings for everyone in the Santa Monica Courthouse California "is into teenage girls"
I hope you are always dealt with fairly in USA but often this is not the case in California.
For more information on the California District Attorneys office in regards to corruption and retaliation see:
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/515-4.php
And
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....pant-.html
Alot of links to corruption eh?
Anon| 5.8.10 @ 4:43AM
Nick likes to misrepresent the crime and call people bad names, a bit like throwing stones.
Also Bill believes because someone defends Polanski because they don't like judicial and prosecutorial corruption and that they like fair dealings for everyone in the Santa Monica Courthouse California "is into teenage girls"
I hope you are always dealt with fairly in USA but often this is not the case in California.
For more information on the California District Attorneys office in regards to corruption and retaliation see:
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/515-4.php
And
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....pant-.html
Alot of links to corruption eh?
Tom| 5.8.10 @ 9:52AM
Anon,
Why are you posting this? It has never been tested in a court of law. Or is that threshold only important when other people post links.
Beyond that it is a strawman argument. If Cooley let off pedophile priest he should be disbarred and sent to prison. It does not change the facts of the Polanski case at all.
anon| 5.8.10 @ 9:04PM
Tom does not know the facts of Polanski's case Geimer's statements in fact have never been tested in a court of law via cross - examination, there was a plea deal and if Cooley let off a pedophile priest for sexual molestation it shows a double standard with Cooley in favor of pedophile priests in return for money so he can become attorney general of California.
Bohred| 5.8.10 @ 8:59AM
Anon, it that a lisp or an echo??
I'm off to the haymow.
Pingback| 5.8.10 @ 9:01AM
Los Angeles Adult Entertainment: Justice Delayed | News For Los Angeles Escorts. links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
MS office 2007 | 5.8.10 @ 10:55AM
Obama does NOT have an ostrich strategy. His actions are purposful, deliberate and intentional, consistent with the neo-communist, Marxist ,hate America-firster he is.
Pingback| 5.9.10 @ 10:32AM
About American Spectator | Worldwide News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Kylie Estwick| 5.9.10 @ 10:52AM
I love how cons love to drag out Roman Polanski as some sort of symbol of an imaginary permissiveness of leftist ideology. Yeah, the guy is guilty as hell and should go to jail, but just try to bring up a 1000 years of systematic child abuse in the Roman Catholic church and all you hear about is "forgiveness".
Nick| 5.9.10 @ 11:25AM
"[...] but just try to bring up a 1000 years of systematic child abuse in the Roman Catholic church [...]."
What is the source of this calumny against the Bride of Christ?
Mata| 5.10.10 @ 5:01AM
Why would the Judge after ruling that Roman Polanski was not a mentally disturbed sex offender on Sept 19th 1977- want to re- evaluate Polanski again psychiatrically for 90 days before committing to that being the final sentence of Roman Polanski or committing to different sentence?
If the Santa Monica Judge was going to commit to a different sentence after the 90 day evaluation this would be the same as giving Roman Polanski two sentences. In addition the second 90 day pyschiatrict evaluation was unnecessary since the Judge had declared that Polanski was not a mentally disturbed sex offender on Sept 19th 1977.
It would make more sense that the 90 days was the full sentence for Roman Polanski which is what the original prosecutor's Roger Gunson said in the movie Polanski Wanted and Desired, and is also in Roger Gunson’s sealed testimony, plus the victim's lawyer’s testimony corroborates the Los Angeles Prosecutor Gunson’s testimony.
The first link below is from the County of Los Angeles Prosecutors’ and DA’s brief opposing the unsealing of the original prosecutor in Polanski’s case, Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson's testimony.
www.scribd.com/full/31058289?a.....xoisgvf6lz
It can be seen that the original 1977 Santa Monica Judge ruled that Roman Polanski was not a mentally disordered sex offender based on the reports of two psychiatrists, See Page 36 and also Page 48 where Judge Rittenband orders Roman Polanski to its prison facility in Chino for an in depth diagnostic evaluation pursuant to 1203.3 of the California penal code.
Also at news.google.com/newspapers?id=JNURAAAAIBAJ&sjid=He4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6879,1950498&hl=en
Roman Polanski's statement that Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley revived attempts to sentence him last year just to get political votes has ring of truth about it.
ALL ABOUT STEVE
At these links the Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley is linked to corruption and retaliation.
latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/judge-cooleys-retaliation-against-union-members-striking-and-rampant-.html
According to www.fulldisclosure.net Los Angeles DA Steve Cooley has refused to prosecute pedophiles and child molesters who work in the Catholic Church.
So why is the LA DA Steve Cooley chasing across the world after Roman Polanski now, if he is not prosecuting local California Church’s sexual molesting predator Priests and those Government Officials that cover up the sexual molestation crimes at California’s institutions?
Could it be if DA Steve Cooley receives political campaign money from the Church, that when the priests sexually molest the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office might turn a blind cheek?
And does the District Attorney think that he can also use foreign celebrities like Roman Polanski – to fan the World media for LA DA’s Steve Cooley’s own personal campaign in seeking higher office in California.
And who would benefit from Steve Cooley becoming California’s Attorney General anyway?
The answer is – only those who are favored such as rich California institutions including churches, and their sexual molesting employees, who may be shielded from Justice if they come bearing gifts.
If the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office is going to hold people accountable for sexual crimes, then there should be no distinction or discriminatory measures in place, or false extradition requests, where Roman Polanski is selected for prosecution again after 33 years, but not the local government & the Church’s sexual molesters, who get a free pass with the Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley turning a blind eye.
If this is in fact what is really happening, then isn’t this
all about Steve,
where it is all about what a prosecution, or what a lack of a prosecution can do for Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley in advancing his political career?
Other County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Officials have also advanced their careers in much the same manner by having sexual assault victims assaulted and battered in the Santa Monica Courthouse, by the police who covered up the sexual molestation and discrimination complaint. And for their assistance in cover up of sexual molestation crimes they receive promotions to be California Justices.
Nick| 5.10.10 @ 3:09PM
Mata,
Are you "Anon" posting under, still, another name?
Or, are you just another child rape defender?
anon| 5.10.10 @ 6:20PM
Hey Nick, isn't that another name for the devil.
Are you a corrupt Judge and Prosecutor defender.
You are sure sounding like one. Hope you don't run into judicial corruption could be fatal
Nick| 5.10.10 @ 7:59PM
That would be "Old Nick", perv.
I believe lusting after young children has rotted your brain.
Now, defend your assertion that "[a] minor can consent [...]."
anon| 5.13.10 @ 3:42AM
Take your anger and shove it...
Pingback| 5.10.10 @ 6:34AM
Search For American Spectator | Broadcasting News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.10.10 @ 6:59AM
Kill the .XXX Domain — Start a War on Pornography Instead | Domain hosting links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Sonny| 5.23.10 @ 10:16PM
This is about Polanski, bait and switch contracts, and also all about County of Los Angeles Judges, Prosecutors, District Attorneys plus 13 & 16 year olds tossing integrity into the wind by prostituting themselves for fame, glory and for financial gain.
When Los Angeles County Officials seek promotion either to the higher office of California’s Attorney General or the higher office of California Justice the temptation for this additional power, serves to undermine their integrity also.
So if you want to be a Federal Appeals Judge and you ratify the Torture Memos, you'll get your promotion.
After that you'll be able to serve & protect California Justices who obtained promotion through holding staged hearings with undocumented white sheriff deputies present in the Santa Monica courtroom specifically employed to assault and batter sexual assault victims from Santa Monica College for reporting police corruption.
And in the case of the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband and actress Charlotte Lewis both abandoned their own integrity to gain fame, glory, at famed Roman Polanski's expense through making agreements which they breached after Polanski had performed his side of the bargain
In both cases Polanski complied with the agreement that Judge Rittenband and Charlotte Lewis had made with Polanski whether explicitly or implicitly, while Charlotte remained silent as her career was made, but both reneged on the deals they had made with Roman Polanski, & betrayed him.
Steve Cooley who is now seeking the higher office to be California’s Attorney General, is also betraying Polanski for all the same reasons, using Polanski's fame and the problems the original Santa Monica Judge caused by not playing straight with Polanski, to enhance Cooley’s own political campaign.
Los Angeles DA Steve Cooley wants to extradite Polanski under false pretenses and has not provided either the complete or the correct information to the Swiss Federal Justice Department regarding Roman Polanski's sentence which should time served at Chino Penitentiary California in the 1970’s, which was the original Santa Monica Judge. Rittenband’s original agreement, and which original Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson witnessed.
anon| 6.21.10 @ 4:45AM
I believe there was a kind of backlash in California’s Justice stemming from the Manson murders that included Polanski’s beautiful American wife Sharon Tate and unborn child, and his friends.
As far as California Justice and the press were concerned, Roman Polanski was guilty because he was married to Sharon Tate who had been brutally murdered in California, and because Roman Polanski had made films (not his own original written material) that had gone so far as to show a devil having sex with a woman.
The World’s press and Californian law enforcement got confused by Roman Polanski’s excellent visual portrayal of the devil having sex with a woman in Rosemary’s Baby, then the horrifying Manson murders that involved his American wife and child, and 10 years later the Los Angeles authorities confused the devil with Roman Polanski himself.
Los Angeles Prosecutors and other human beings are not very bright sometimes and seem unable to distinguish between the character of a person who is telling a story, and the subject matter of that story.
Los Angeles prosecutors are looking for modus operandi and may try to equate dark subject matter of a movie such as Rosemary’s Baby, with the person who is telling and directing the story in a magnificent way.
But this correlation between storyteller and story is not an absolute and is not a definite indication of the storyteller’s character.
10 years after Rosemary’s Baby and Sharon Tate’s horrific death certain Los Angeles police and prosecutors confused Polanski's wife's brutal murder, plus the devil shown in the movie Rosemary’s Baby, with the story teller Roman Polanski, and the real events in his life that he did not cause.
So then Polanski was made out to be the devil for having sex with an underage girl in California, and the devil’s attributes were assigned to Polanski through using Samantha's age, her mother, and Charlotte Lewis’s help, even though all of this dehumanization of Roman Polanski to transform him into a devil is not justified at all!!!!
Throughout time it has always been that before others do brutal harm to someone, the person is dehumanized and stigmatized. This should stop now in Roman Polanski’s case – whether the dehumanization is unconscious or not!!!!
This reminds me of an earlier crime against Roman Polanski, another bait and switch incident that Polanski had faced in Poland after the Second World war where Roman Polanski nearly lost his life to a serial murderer who lured Polanski under the ground to steal his bicycle and who nearly killed Polanski in the process.
It seems that Samantha and her mother Susan Galley, the California Judge Laurence J. Rittenband, Los Angeles prosecutor David Wells, 9th Circuit Judge Trott, Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and his office 33 years later plus actress Charlotte Lewis have wanted to steal Polanski’s fame, good name and his money, and his freedom all for a casual sexual encounter for which Roman Polanski was not entirely responsible.
Enough is Enough