After 31 years ....

[IDrinkaRum]

Roman Polanski is finally arrested and hopefully brought back to the United States to face what he did in the 1970's to a 13-year-old girl

For those who don't know the background:

Mr. Polanski, world-famous director, former husband of the murdered actress Sharon Tate, raped a 13-year-old girl who was modeling for him.

He pled guilty to one charge, and went to prison for 42 days for evaluation. He claims there was a "plea bargain" that stated the 42 days would be his entire sentence. When it looked like the judge in the case was going to "renege" on the deal, in 1978, he fled the United States and moved to France. The United States, since 2005, has been seeking to arrest him wherever he was in the world.

I think it's great that he's finally getting what he deserves. Everyone in the article is lamenting how we need to take into account what his life was like before the rape. We should feel sorry for him.

What about the 13-year-old girl he raped? Should we just sweep her under the rug?

[Arcade Man D]

The worst part is they're saying the cops should go after "real criminals", as though child rape and fleeing prosecution weren't real crimes.

[Rapscallion]

Doesn't the US have a statute of limitations? May be a faulty memory of mine.

Rapscallion

[gremcint]

There are statute of limitations on lots of things but not everything has it (murder doesn't have one) and there are ways to get around it for example an ongoing conspiracy to hide it means that the crime is still going and therefore the statute of limitation has never kicked in.

[lordlundar]

In addition, when you flee, you become a fugitive, which has it's own crime listing that continues until you are apprehended.

[BroomJockey]

In addition, when you flee, you become a fugitive,

Only if you've actually been arrested and charged. Otherwise, it's still only the original crime. And I know leaving the jurisdiction can stop the statute of limitations from running out, at least for a while. If they've arrested him, I suppose they've worked all the logistics out, though.

[Rapscallion]

Only if you've actually been arrested and charged. Otherwise, it's still only the original crime.

Since he pled guilty, I get the feeling that the situation may be past charged. May be the entire reason they ignored the statute, in that case.

Rapscallion

[lordlundar]

Only if you've actually been arrested and charged. Otherwise, it's still only the original crime.

So it's applicable in this case, as he was arrested, charged, and pled guilty, then skipped out on his sentence.

(why yes, I am pedantic today. How'd you guess?)

[BroomJockey]

So it's applicable in this case, as he was arrested, charged, and pled guilty, then skipped out on his sentence.

If you want to be pedantic, a sentence hadn't been handed down, and he served the only time he was given (the 42 days). Further, to really bake your noodle, he's in Swiss custody pending completion of hearings in the US, and even then he can contest it in Swiss court. So there's still a lot to be done before there's anything to say he's a fugitive, let alone getting charged with that.

[IDrinkaRum]

Roman Polanski's arrest may lead to his freedom, says a source

Plus the French are watching this case very closely as Mr. Polanski is considered a French citizen as he lived there when he was younger (not sure if he was born in France) before his parents moved him to Poland.

Even his victim, Samantha Geimer (who has been public about this for a long time) wants the case dismissed as she wants to get on with her life, and besides, she's sued Mr. Polanski and has recieved an undisclosed amount of money because of this case.

Should he be set free completely? Should the US bring him back, and then officially declare the 42 days he was in jail "time served"?

[BroomJockey]

Should he be set free completely? Should the US bring him back, and then officially declare the 42 days he was in jail "time served"?

No, I think they should just "lose" the extradition hearing. If the victim doesn't want anything done, just quietly let it go.

[kibbles]

I think he should have to do community service or something like that. The victim wants it let go, so I think it should be let go.

Unpopular opinion; but, I don't think there should be any jail time.

[BlaqueKatt]

problem-he never actually served the jail time-he was in jail for a court ordered psychiatric evaluation for about 42 days(heck Paris Hilton was in that long for a DUI and there was TONS of outrage over her "special treatment"-but "just let him go" for Rape?)-a judge does not have to accept a plea agreement made between lawyers.(especially when just days before the sentencing he was photographed in Germany with TWO MORE underage girls) And the victim does not get to say "don't charge him" that's the DA's decision. The only reason she doesn't want him charged is because he payed her off.

I think he should have to do community service or something like that.

community service for forcible rape and sodomy? Sure

If the victim doesn't want anything done, just quietly let it go.

The victim wants it let go, so I think it should be let go.

Victims of domestic violence often are reluctant to press charges against their attackers, inhibited by emotional or financial ties to their husbands or boyfriends. (Domestic-violence cases are classified either as misdemeanors or felonies, depending on the severity of the injuries.) In a number of cases, women who choose to prosecute later diminish the severity of the incident. The longer a case is pending, the more likely it is that the victim will drop charges.

Prosecutors are working hard to change this. Casey Gwinn, the newly elected city attorney for San Diego, bluntly voices his approach to domestic-violence cases: "When there's a bank robbery, we don't ask the teller if they want to press charges. We don't - we can't - ask murder victims if they want to press charges. Why should this crime be any different?"



He drugged and raped a 13 year-old girl*, then when he asked if she was on the pill(she wasn't)-sodomized her because he didn't want her to get pregnant. He'll get more time for fleeing before sentencing.

(Eleven months later, having pled guilty to one count, he fled to Europe before sentencing)

And well how do you feel about "just letting go" priests that abused children, after all heck it was years ago right?

Or the guy that kidnapped that girl and had two kids with her, that was years ago too.......


heck the bastard even made a movie about it, he was arrested on his way to accept and award for the movie.

The French think the only reason he's been arrested is because the US is "full of prudes" that think sex between a 13 year-old girl and a 43 year-old man is wrong-even if the girl is drugged and says no numerous times throughout the ordeal.

*link to grand jury testomony

[kibbles]

I don't think much will come of this anways when it's all said and done, JMO.

[BroomJockey]

The longer a case is pending, the more likely it is that the victim will drop charges.

Maybe in this case, the fact that it's 31 years later, and she received some compensation, she really just wants to move on with her life? Is it really in her best interests to drag everything up and re-traumatize her? Who cares what the French think the US thinks, blah blah blah. Interests of the victim, if he *is* extradited, does she have to pay that cash back, if there was some sort of agreement? Because yes, let's potentially make the victim's life harder in every possible way to put a 70-year-old man in prison. It's not likely that she's going to weep tears of joy seeing him lead off in cuffs, after all.