|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 28, 2009 17:26:15 GMT -8
As you probably know, Polanski is under arrest in Switzerland and may be extradited to the U.S. Even if that happens there is a strong possibility that he will get not much more than a slap on the wrist. (In case you are not aware of the case, he drugged and raped a 13 year-old girl in 1977. After conviction, he somehow fled the country and has been protected by the French.)
The victim, now a middle-aged woman, says she does not want Polanski prosecuted further. Too bad. The guy fled after being convicted and should be punished. Seems a few knot-heads here in this country (see section D in today's LA Times) think we should just drop the whole thing since, well, what's the big deal, anyway? Disgusting.
Hollywood values, I guess.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 28, 2009 17:30:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 28, 2009 17:39:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 29, 2009 7:16:59 GMT -8
After reading the excerpts from the grand jury transcript, I say let the bastard rot. Though because of misconduct by both the prosecutor and judge, it looks like he might be able to get out in time to die in his own bed.  |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 29, 2009 9:23:21 GMT -8
Apparently the prosecutor at the time of the trial was talking in terms of 40 days in jail. At least that's what a defense attorney said on Fox last night in a debate of the Polanski matter. It's unbelievable to me that a prosecutor would ask for anything less than several years in jail for such an inexcusable crime.
Nevertheless, L.A. may be stuck with whatever terms were agreed to before Polanski fled. He claimed that he was afraid the prosecution would renege on the deal and he would get a harsher sentence. Baloney!
Here's one more factor that no one is mentioning. Isn't the fact that he fled the country in itself another crime?
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 29, 2009 10:40:01 GMT -8
Not only is this author off base in my view, but read some of the comments. It looks to me like the needle on the moral compass of some folks is bent or broken. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Sept 29, 2009 11:58:50 GMT -8
Not excusing Polanski and he should get what ever is coming. Think he probably did suffer however after Sharon Tate (his wife?) had his baby cut out of her by the Mansons.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 29, 2009 14:41:35 GMT -8
Apparently the prosecutor at the time of the trial was talking in terms of 40 days in jail. At least that's what a defense attorney said on Fox last night in a debate of the Polanski matter. It's unbelievable to me that a prosecutor would ask for anything less than several years in jail for such an inexcusable crime. Nevertheless, L.A. may be stuck with whatever terms were agreed to before Polanski fled. He claimed that he was afraid the prosecution would renege on the deal and he would get a harsher sentence. Baloney! Here's one more factor that no one is mentioning. Isn't the fact that he fled the country in itself another crime? AzWm The trial judge is under no obligation to accept a plea bargain. In fact, that is why Polanski ran. His defense atty warned him that the judge was probably going to throw the book at him. However, I thought that if the plea bargain was not accepted by the judge the defendant had the option of changing his plea and going to trial. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Oct 3, 2009 8:59:16 GMT -8
Apparently the prosecutor at the time of the trial was talking in terms of 40 days in jail. At least that's what a defense attorney said on Fox last night in a debate of the Polanski matter. It's unbelievable to me that a prosecutor would ask for anything less than several years in jail for such an inexcusable crime. AzWm It was a different time. The cover of Blind Faith's album a couple of years earlier had a picture of a naked 13 or 14 year old girl on it and I don't recall there being much, if any, outcry at the time. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 6, 2009 20:56:23 GMT -8
Didn't Polanski pay off his victim? Maybe that's why she doesn't care anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Oct 7, 2009 17:42:47 GMT -8
Didn't Polanski pay off his victim? Maybe that's why she doesn't care anymore. Perhaps. But maybe she was already sexually active and has a perspective we don't understand. That's obviously not meant to excuse his behavior, but again, it was a different time. Also doesn't mean he shouldn't be busted for what he did, but it does seem to me perspective is always important. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 8, 2009 10:02:51 GMT -8
Didn't Polanski pay off his victim? Maybe that's why she doesn't care anymore. Yes he did. She sued him in civil court and there was an out-of-court settlement. 500K seems to stick in my mind. |
|
