Weigh in: No means no...unless it doesn't, of course.

A gifted motion picture director. A guy who'd been up and down the block a few times, especially after his wife's murder in 1969 at the hands of Charles Manson's wacky, cold-blooded friends. And unless you've been hiding under a rock the last few weeks, you already know he's a man who is currently the unwilling guest of a Swiss incarceration facility, by way of drugging and raping 13 year old Samantha Gailey in Jack Nicholson's guest room in 1977. Sex with underage people wasn't as big a deal back then, but it still counted as statutory rape. In this case, our person of great import gave her drugs then anally raped her, which means rape-rape, disregard the whole statutory thing. He cut a deal, went to jail for a couple of days, then fled the country like an idiot. Roman Polanski didn't do a hell of a lot right in 1977.

The young lady in question is certainly not a young lady now – she's 45 years old, and by all accounts she's doing just fine. She states clearly that she's put it behind her, and while she's no fan of Polanski she's forgiven him.

This situation has three issues of notable magnitude which make an otherwise uncluttered case of “get his ass over here and try him” a little unusual:

One: child rape is child rape, in 1977 as it is today. I just might say that myself, as well as “I'd shoot the putrid son of a bitch between the eyes, were it my daughter, and to hell with 'The Pianist'.” Additionally, fleeing the country in defiance of court proceedings is bad joss, no matter who you are. Remember though: Polanski pled. He won't be tried for rape, even though there's little question he did it. He pled guilty to a far lesser charge of “engaging in Unlawful Sexual Intercourse” which sounds about as bad as shoplifting a dildo, but with deportation overtures.

Two: there are 138 petition signers, Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese among the better known, who evidently think it's, you know, a “big deal” but not that big big deal. They say he pled, served 45 days and he split, and let it lie and drop the case. Not their call – a judge had a shot at slapping around a celebrity and that chance was lost – it seems the chance is born anew.

Third: finally, and no less important – Samantha Geimer (once known as “Gailey”) is, as I mentioned above, doing just fine. So fine in fact, she doesn't want to revisit the case – further, she wants the Los Angeles district attorney's office to drop the charges. Not for Polanski's sake: simply because this is newsworthy, and she is absolutely dead-set against being part of a (or: the latest) scandalous, stupid quagmire of media lunacy at the behest of bloodthirsty lawyers snapping at a famous case she herself refers to as an “...irrelevant legal nicety“ for them. I don't blame her a bit. If you suffered a sexual attack as a child, would you want Glenn Beck or Nancy Grace yapping about it?

So let's weigh in, people: is it time to let this outdated, painful fiasco go and forgive, forget, and allow the victim to quietly forge ahead; or should the legal system drive once again the wheels of justice in full view of a slime-addicted world and finish off the wormy but talented old bastard once and for all? Let's hear it.


  1. This is a fiasco indeed. There has been a great deal of speculation about why anyone's bothering with this now, since there's been ample opportunity to catch the benighted director in the past thirty-odd years and no one has bitten. To your points...

    1. Yes. He pled out all those years ago. Why run, then? A rumor that a judge was going to slap his ass in prison for decades? All right. But who seriously thinks he'd have actually SERVED years in prison? It never would have happened - he'd have gotten out within months. Every source I've read on the subject agrees that a severe sentence would inevitably been overturned on appeal.

    As for raping little girls - he's pond scum, and I'd be willing to bet that 1977 was far from the last time he indulged in his...preference.

    2. Candace Bergen also weighed in on the issue, and is firmly in the camp that declares that he's the victim here, but no matter who says it, it's nonsense. Leaving aside the fact that a bunch of celebrities that live in the firmly insulated Cloud-Cuckoo-Land that their money will buy them are not necessarily noted for their brains and deep thoughts (I include Woody Allen here - he's made the same fucking movie over and over for the last 40 years), when it comes to issues of law, they don't count.

    Some have used the "he's old" excuse to keep him out of prison...but that didn't exactly work for people like George Ryan, the former governor of Illinois. "He has a family" is also bandied about, as if there aren't thousands of men in prison in the same boat. Being convicted of a crime and imprisoned are PUNISHMENTS, and you don't get off just because you want to see your kids.

    The amount of time that's passed is another excuse I see bandied about. So? So what? If the passage of time negates the fact that a crime was committed, then why bother hunting down old Nazis, even today? No one gets to have it both ways. Events don't un-happen just because of the passage of years.

    As for any statutes of limitation - they don't count here either. He admitted to the crime and was convicted long before any statutes would have run out. Remember that the REAL issue is sentencing.

    The "he's an artist" excuse holds no water, either. Too bad so sad if "The Piano" hadn't been made. It would have eventually anyway and to be truthful, there are other directors out there who have been making fine movies without having done a runner after raping a child. I'm sure many a Mozart and Picasso have missed out on fame and fortune because they did the stupid thing, too.

    3. Samantha Geimer's opinion doesn't count, either. Really. First - she was a child at the time of the trial. She was unable to consent to sex at 13, and there are very well-founded reasons that adult and child crime victims are not allowed to decide if their attackers go to trial.

    In fact, since the director has already admitted his guilt in the matter and ran away before sentencing, I don't know why anyone bothered asking Samantha's opinion anyway. Her part in the proceedings was over long before any of this happened. She may have "forgiven" him, but that's personal. The courts are the ones to decide his fate now.

    Of course, we can argue about this for the length of time the celebrity kiddie-rapist has been swanning around Europe making babies and hanging out with his buddies. No doubt many will. He is undeserving of all the attention.

    If he were an adult man, instead of a pampered celebritard, he would turn himself in, serve the 15 minutes he's likely to get and carry on with his life. He won't though. His public profile has suffered of late, and he needs as much attention as he can muster for the next while. No doubt he has a movie or two in the can which would benefit from the publicity.

  2. "If he were an adult man, instead of a pampered celebritard, he would turn himself in, serve the 15 minutes he's likely to get and carry on with his life. He won't though. His public profile has suffered of late, and he needs as much attention as he can muster for the next while. No doubt he has a movie or two in the can which would benefit from the publicity."

    I totally agree, Messy.

    And to weigh in with my thoughts. At this point in time, Polanski is going to be serving whatever the sentence would have been for 1977 laws for his pleaded to crime, plus whatever sentence the law allows and the judge slaps him with for fleeing. That's the legal issue at this point. The fleeing. Not the rape. Sadly, that was already pleaded down and dealt with by the legal authorities at the time. My understanding, though, is that by fleeing before sentencing he's been a fugitive, and there are penalties for attempting to avoid the legal punishment for your crime.
    I say, slap him with those.

    But that's just me.

  3. Drag his ass over here and put him in the same facility with Manson and watch the fun that ensues.

  4. See...here's my issue: I get that although we act like justice is blind, we are all in on the fact that it really isn't and we all are certainly not equal in the eyes of the law. We see it all the time--the way we treat politicians, famous athletes, movie stars, etc. Remember Paris Hilton and her whining ass who didn't even have to serve the whole, what, 30 days?? We all know that, had that been you or I, our licenses would be GONE and we'd have served every bit of that time. Wait, what was my point?

    Oh yeah, life sucks cuz I'm not rich and/or famous.

    I concur with other posters that the victim is sorta irrelevant at this juncture--the state of California has its case to resolve. Polanski was a douchebag to run and I have no sympathy for him--he fucked up and he needs to take responsibility for what he did--something that is sorely lacking in most of our society right now. "Oh, I'm a victim!!" Jesus, doesn't it seem like everyone is lately?

    As far as all the LaLa land nutties, I wonder if they would be willing to sign a petition if it was THEIR 13-year old daughter.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. For me, there's something else here that we're glossing over. I agree with the facts of that night. And with how horrifying they are. So, please understand that.

    However, where I have an issue is with the conduct of the judge in this case. Polanski pleaded because he was promised a specific sentence--90 days in a psych ward for "evaluation". This was agreed upon by prosecution and defense. Polanski served and was released after 42 days. Pretty typical, actually. That should have been it. But, that's when the judge reneged and, in an wildly unprecedented move, ordered Polanski back in *and* said he required Polanski to waive his rights to challenge deportation as a condition of the plea bargain!

    In other words, Polanski gave up his right to trial (wherein people would've testified this girl had told everyone she was 18, that she was coming on to him, that she brought the drugs, yaddah-yaddah), gave up his right to representation at a trial with a jury, etc., because he was told by the judge in the case that if he pleaded, he would be given a sentence of X. Well, Polanski pleaded, the judge reneged. No rumor about it. He reneged. Polanski *then and only then* ran.

    I'm not excusing his actions that night. Not by a long shot. But, I understand his running. And given the facts, I would have thought long and hard about it, too.

  7. Smag, my understanding was that he was let out temporarily for a work obligation, and that he was still supposed to serve the 48 days. The rumor that the judge was going to throw out the plea bargain was the reason he ran.

    My take: you cannot possibly expect people to respect the system if they don't get more punishment for running away than they would have if they stuck around. You're too old? Well, sorry, your younger self took that risk and is solely responsible for the fact that you'll be serving time in diapers.

  8. Smag, I understand that as far as it went. But if the judge had gone hog-wild on the sentencing, it would have been overturned. I don't think he could have tossed out the plea, since that had already been agreed upon and entered. The judge could have tried it, but everything I've read indicates that he wouldn't have got away with it.

    In any event, there's nothing anyone can do about it now. The initial case is over. No one's debating anything about that crime. The issue now has to do with his fugitive status.

  9. The guy's a sick perv, and there's been a ruling on that part of the crime. I agree that it is the fugitive status and his fleeing that are now the charges that he must face. For a long time, Polanski has made sure that he lived and worked in non-extradition countries. I'm no legal expert, but I don't think the statute of limitations runs out on fleeing from justice. Even if that sentencing is off, so what? Let him face a judge and/or jury of his peers. He can always appeal...and appeal. He can afford some great lawyering...we all know he won't face the music the same way we would had we poked a 13 year old and run off to France.

  10. I don't believe the release had anything to do with work status. I think he was released at that time by all normal rules as having satisfied his sentence (at least as I understand what I've read, but I'm certainly willing to be corrected on that point). Only then did the judge come after him. In Polanski's view, this would have been the justice system coming after him again. How was he to know (as drugged up as he probably was) that he'd *ever* be allowed to go without being hassled? I'm not excusing the man, but, if you've got the means to run and you think a judge has it out for you, you might run, too? Think if you're vacationing in Columbia and you're accused of something and you're let out on bail. If you have a shot, are you not going to high tail it back to the States?

  11. Thanks for mentioning Woody Allen, Messy. Great that the guy who was banging his barely-age-of-majority adopted daughter signed the petition on behalf of the guy who drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl who was already being exploited by her parents.

    "If you've got the means to run..." by all means, run, but don't act like you didn't know what you were doing when you became a fugitive and then whine that whatever it was you did is irrelevant and why are they all up in your face about it?

  12. He needs to buck up and take his punishment.

    I simply love the fact that we pulled his life as he knew it out from under him while he thought he was going to accept an award. His behavior in 1977 had a huge effect on his prey's life, and due to his avoidance it continues.

    Can I blame the victim for wanting it over? No.

    Should he pay with jail time? Yes, some quiet time may help him understand.

    Would he run AGAIN if given the chance? You bet!

    Did he bring on the Judge's change of opinion after serving 45 days under psych evaluation with his own behavior? Didn't I see him state that he didn't think a thing was wrong with his bahavior with this young girl until he was much, much older, years later? I ponder if he somehow thumbed his nose at this Judge. Was this a smackdown by the Judge for some "entitlement behavior"?

    I have all these questions.

  13. Agreed, Spacey and Debbie, but, how you act after sentencing and serving that sentence should have no bearing on what a judge does. If you're sentenced to 10 days, you ought to serve 10 days and be released, even if you then thumb your nose at the judge and say "You American judge, I fart in your general direction!"

    Seems to me that through whatever means (perhaps some of which were shady celebrity deals), Polanski was released and his time served was considered sufficient by all involved. Except the judge, who, face it, had discretion to do whatever the hell he wanted and could have made Polanski's life miserable for the foreseeable future. So Polanski gave up his right to trial trusting the system. I'm not calling him a victim, I'm not asking for pity on him, but, sounds like the system fucked up pretty bad here, too, and, god forbid it's one of us next time who draws an asshole judge for a parking fine (no, I'm not comparing his crime to a parking fine, I'm just saying that if the system is fucked up, it needs to be called out, regardless).

  14. Smag, Sweetie, there was no "wildly unprecedented move" to call him back in ~ the fact was, that Mr. Polanski was already scheduled for sentencing to take place after his psych eval ~ at which time the deal was he'd be sentenced to "time served" which was supposed to be the 90 days he spent in the psych hospital. He pissed the judge off (who thought it was a cushy deal to begin with ~ 90 days for raping a child) by getting one of the shrinks to declare him "mentally competent" after just 42 days and release him. Then he pissed the judge off even further by, as he was awaiting sentencing, making statements to the press about how backwards Americans are because "everyone knows everyone really wants to fuck young girls, even cops want to fuck young girls, even judges want to fuck young girls."

    So this particular judge decided that since Mr. Polanski was going to thumb his nose at him, at his sentencing he was basically going to say to him "Okay, buddy, you've been declared mentally competent, so that means you can finish carrying out your sentence ~ in prison." So he was going to give him 48 days in prison and ask him to voluntarily deport the country afterwards. Mr. Polanski apparently heard from someone he though credible (or so he says) that the judge was going to throw out the plea deal and sentence him longer. Which I kind of think is bullshit ~ because the story doesn't play so sympathetically for Mr. Polanski if you know he was running from 48 days of prison for raping a kid ~ and not "years in prison" as his story alleges. It's that whole "the judge was going to sentence him to years in jail" conspiracy theory that's got him the sympathy all these years. Not that he's a yellow-bellied coward who didn't want to spend just over 6 weeks in jail to pay for his crime. Why not? Afraid he'd get raped?

    And this part:

    "In other words, Polanski gave up his right to trial (wherein people would've testified this girl had told everyone she was 18, that she was coming on to him, that she brought the drugs, yaddah-yaddah),"

    ...well, that's just crazy talk. Who would have testified to this? And did you see pictures of this girl? The one in pigtails with daisies in her hair? There is no way Polanski wanted this to go to trail, with the child he raped testifying against him.

    Mr. Polanski needs to serve out the remainder of his sentence (48 days in jail) and then be sentenced for the crime of "fleeing to avoid sentencing" which we believe would be two years, max. Plus, I believe he can be forced to pay back the money it cost to capture him.

    And can I just say that if you are having people sign your petition to get you leniency for INAPPROPRIATE SEX WITH A TEENAGE GIRL, then Woody Allen is about the last person I'd want in my corner. Sheesh!

  15. MM, I defer to your more complete knowledge of the specifics of the plea. That said, there's still plenty to be discussed!

    Who would have testified? Anjelica Huston may have. Here's what she said in court papers preceding, "She appeared to be one of those kind of little chicks between -- could be any age up to 25," Huston said in court papers. "She did not look like a 13-year-old scared little thing." Further, Polanski had been taking nude shots of her for weeks, so, where were her parents? What would those shots, displayed in court, say to the jury about her willingness to engage in acts like that (remember, this was a very different time than now when women were thought to have invited this type of thing by their actions). What was up with that? I'm not blaming her or her parents (at all), I'm just saying that a trial may have been very different than you think. A good defense attorney would have had mucho ammo. So, going to trial, who knows?

    As for the judge not sentencing Polanski to years in jail, I guess we'll never know. But the fact that the judge might change any bit of the deal based on Polanski's attitude, to me, isn't justice. If you make a deal, you stick to it. If he wanted to enforce something, he should have sent him back to the Psych Ward, IMHO. But Polanski being an arrogant asshole? Should that have surprised anyone?

  16. Angelica Huston made those statements to independent sources (which were then admitted into court papers) before she accepted a plea agreement from the DA to testify that she'd seen the girl at Nicholson's house, in Polanski's bedroom at such and such a place and time ~ in exchange for the drug possession charges being dropped against her for the coke they found at Nicholson's house when they searched it.

    Do you really think it would have swayed a jury to hear Angelica Huston saying she "thought" the girl looked "any age, up to 25"? When Mr. Polanski would testify that he KNEW she was 13? And while the defense may have been able to admit her previous statements as evidence, it would have been countered by the prosecution's volley:

    And tell us, Ms Huston ~ Were you forming these opinions of the victim's age while you were under the influence of cocaine?

    And it may have been a time when "women" were thought to have invited this type of thing by their actions, but I don't think we were so debauched back then as to apply this same mentality to children, no matter how many coked-up witnesses we could get to testify that she thought she older than her years. In fact, by 1974, many "rape shield laws" were being put into place to protect women from having their prior sexual history used against them. And if they were already recognizing the need to protect women from this injustice ~ what do you think the opinion of a court would be about having the "prior sexual history" of a child victim used against her?

    And Mr. Polanski had not been "taking nude shots of her for weeks". There occurred one photo session in which she took her top off while he photographed her inside his car. Approximately two weeks later, he brought her to his house for the second "photo shoot" where and when the assault occurred.

    Picture a jury of middle aged blue collar folks being shown photos of a topless young girl. Do you think the average Joe is going to blame a 13 year old child? Or the 43 year dirty old man who was taking the pictures? These wouldn't be evidence of her wrongdoing ~ but of his.

    The defense would have had NO ammo. Do you get that 100 people could line up and testify a 13 year old was panting and begging for it, taking nude pictures, coming on to him, and toting the drugs ~ it's still illegal to have sex with her? Illegal now, illegal then. No amount of testimony from anyone about anything can erase that fact. He admitted to having "consensual" sex with her ~ it's still sex with a minor, and it's still illegal.

    One hopes that the punishment meted out for a crime will be a deterrent to future similar crimes. Mr. Polanski's statements after his premature release indicated to the judge that Mr. Polanski was not going to be deterred from future behavior of this nature. Thus, it was within his right and prudency to recommit Mr. Polanski to serve out the remainder of his sentence ~ and he could not serve the rest of his sentence in a psych ward, as he had previously been declared "mentally competent."

    Hon, you keep talking as if a trial was something Mr. Polanski wanted and was only denied because he took this plea that the judge supposedly was going to renege on. That, if he would have known what the judge was going to do, would have chosen a trial. Really think about that for a minute. Even in the hedonism of the late 70's (which was only applicable to a small segment of the population, btw) it was not possible for a defendant to have a good outcome in child rape trial, celebrity witness aside. Mr. Polanski wanted to avoid a trial. He certainly was not going to walk away with less than 90 days in jail by bringing this case before a jury.

    And I agree with you about justice. I think it was unjust for Mr. Polanski to not serve out the terms of his plea agreement. If you make a deal, you stick to it ~ right?

  17. MM, most of our conversation is purely theoretical, because a trial did not occur, but, I can absolutely agree with you on one point: Polanski should absolutely have served out his term, whatever it was. Personally, I think it should have been a hell of a lot longer than 90 days! But, given as that's what it was, and given that he served half that (more than a lot of people serve based on percentage of overall sentence), it does seem reasonable to think Polanski felt like someone was about to renege on a deal. Remember, I don't excuse him for this crime! I think he should be hanged by his balls, personally. But, I do have considerable heartburn with a justice system that would change its mind, or go against it's norm, just because some idiot acts like an asshole. Assholism is too subjective for me to consider it a valid tool for the meting out of justice.

  18. Hon, you know it's not my intention to smack you down here. I think we agree on more than we disagree. Given that, and our deep and abiding friendship, let's examine your wackness, shall we?

    I don't quite understand your line of thinking that "given that he served half that (his sentence)...it was reasonable to think Polanski felt like someone was going to renege on a deal."

    In my way of thinking ~ Mr. Polanski is the one who first "reneged on the deal" by getting a sympathetic shrink to sign him out early. The deal was that he'd spend 90 days in a psych ward for "evaluation" (which is hardly a punishment for what he did ~ given that the penalty for this crime is 2 to 4 years in state prison) and he didn't do that. Would you have felt the same way if he had gotten that shrink to deem him "mentally competent" after only 30 days? 20? 10? As you know, the "psych eval" was only a dog and pony show meant to incarcerate him somewhere away from the general prison population for the duration of his sentence ~ and Mr. Polanski used that to his advantage to obtain early release for what was a virtual slap on the wrist to begin with.

    So, it was this "reneging on the deal" and his subsequent behavior that had the judge wanting to sentence him to the remainder of his time (which is well within his right and duty to do) ~ and the only place he could sentence him to was jail. You can't send someone back to a psych ward after they've been declared "mentally competent".

    Let's examine the "subsequent behavior" that is the second reason the judge was going to insist on the full sentence. It was not simply "acting like an asshole". It was vocally and blatantly showing a disregard for the victim of his crime and a marked inability to show remorse for his crime ~ or to even admit that what he had done was a crime. As I mentioned before, one of the goals of criminal punishment is that the defendant come to some realization that what they have done is wrong ~ and Mr. Polanski on numerous occasions voiced his opinion that he felt otherwise.

    Finally, your statement about "a justice system that would change its mind or go against the norm" needs some examining. There is absolutely no proof, just a lot of rumors and innuendo, that the judge intended to "change his mind" and sentence him to more time than the 48 days he owed. Most of those rumors and innuendo were fanned by Mr. Polanski because they made his case for fleeing more sympathetic.

    Btw, let's just say the judge did renege on the deal and sentence him to more than the 48 days ~ from everything I understand, this further conviction past the 48 days would have been overturned on emergency appeal well within the 48 day time period.

    And as far as "going against the norm", first, it is very common for a defendant to be ordered to serve out the remainder of their sentence especially when they have expressed complete contempt and disregard for why they were sentenced. I'm not sure why you think this is unusual. And second, if anything was "going against the norm" it is that a man accused of raping a child was going to be allowed to serve his sentence in a posh psych ward instead of how everyone else has to ~ with grown men who don't cotton to that sort of thing. And THAT is what Mr. Polanski was fleeing from ~ because even just serving 48 days in prison was not to his advantage. This BS about the judge giving him extra time is a smokescreen that has served him well over the years.

    I, too, have a problem with a justice system that uses its power to hurt people in the name of meting out justice. But in this case, your sympathies and mine are wasted.

  19. I suspect Polanski is bitterly regretting not to have served his sentence in the seventies. Times have changed and he'll now have to face a much harsher justice system and public opinion that he did at the time of the offense.

    If it had happened these days the mother too would have been in trouble. As I recall from the news at the time she practically pimped her daughter to Polanski.

  20. Oh, my poor misguided MM. So, what, if someone *says* they're really super double sorry and acts all contrite, the judge should let them go at 42 days, but, if they're an asshole, he should give them more time? That smacks of subjectivism and there's no place for that in Justice. Justice should be blind, yes? Just the facts.

    Because of that, I keep asking myself, "what if Polanski was a black guy and this case was about, say, a rape of a minor by this black guy. And, hey, this black guy sure does look like the black guy who raped poor widow Smith's daughter. And even though there's not a lick of evidence, it's clear the guy's going to be put away for a long damned time. So he pleads to a lesser crime because he knows he's up the creek, even though he didn't do a damn thing other than be black (this happens way more than any of us want to imagine, by the way). And then, after an agreement is reached, the judge decides he doesn't like the guy's attitude. And let's face it, the guy is rightfully pissed and maybe doesn't hide that very well. And the judge reneges on the deal, after the plea! No trial. Boom! To jail with you forever, motherfucker! That's the part of this that tastes bad in my mouth. Not the Polanski part (as I said, he could hang by his nuts for all I care), the Justice part. I've seen too much injustice in my day (and I know, it's nothing compared to what you've seen in your line of work, but still--Genarlow Wilson ring any bells, for example?) to just let a judge have that kind of reneging power, unchecked. It's not right. And, as you know, I'd rather ten guilty go free than one innocent be jailed. Right or wrong, that's how I feel.

    So yes, in this case, our sympathies are wasted. But we would be wise to look at the implications here. And not let them slip by our radar due to Polanski being an ass.

  21. I believe it is you who is misguided, Smag. And ignorant of the law and how it works.

    If someone is up for parole (early release) and they express no remorse or contrition for the crime they've committed ~ they do not get paroled. Is that subjectivism, in your opinion?

    Let's go over your convoluted scenario, which although highly creative has not a thing in common with the case at hand:

    "what if Polanski was a black guy and this case was about, say, a rape of a minor by this black guy."

    Okay, if you want to go there, we can, although what someone's skin color has to do with this type of case, I don't know. I think this shows more about your extreme sympathy towards black people than anything that you think it would make your story more sympathetic to your reader, but that's just me.

    "And, hey, this black guy sure does look like the black guy who raped poor widow Smith's daughter"

    Completely baseless. This was not a case of mistaken identity.

    "And even though there's not a lick of evidence, it's clear the guy's going to be put away for a long damned time"

    Although I enjoy the Freudian slip, there was most certainly a "lick of evidence" in the full and complete admission of the crime by Mr. Polanski.

    "So he pleads to a lesser crime because he knows he's up the creek,"

    No ~ he pled guilty to lesser crimes and a reduced sentence to avoid going to State prison with real rapists for 2 to 4 years ~ because he knew he was guilty.

    "even though he didn't do a damn thing other than be black"

    WTF? No. He did a thing called raping a child, which he admitted to.

    "And then, after an agreement is reached, the judge decides he doesn't like the guy's attitude. And let's face it, the guy is rightfully pissed and maybe doesn't hide that very well. And the judge reneges on the deal, after the plea!"

    This did not happen. There were only rumors and innuendo that it was going to happen, all of which were fanned by Mr. Polanski himself to make his case for fleeing sentencing more sympathetic.

    "No trial. Boom! To jail with you forever, motherfucker!"

    No trial was necessary since he admitted and pled guilty. And not to jail forever. To jail to serve out the rest of his sentence that was part of the original deal ~ that Mr. Polanski is the one that reneged on by talking a sympathetic psychiatrist deem him "mentally competent" and releasing him early.

    Why are you taking an imaginary case that's clearly filled with bias and prejudice and trying to compare it to Mr. Polanski's case? The judge didn't "renege" on anything. And in this case, Mr. Polanski is not one of your "one innocent" that might be wrongfully imprisoned. He was an admitted child-rapist, who went on to make further statements that indicated that the 42 days he "served" in the psych ward was in no way going to be a deterrent to future similar behavior. And as such, he deserved to be remanded back to serve the remainder of his sentence.

    Just like a person OF ANY COLOR would be remanded back to finish serving their sentence if they stood in front of a parole board seeking early release and said "Everyone knows everyone wants to fuck young girls. Cops want to fuck young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls." At that point, as in the time period while Mr. Polanski was awaiting sentencing, these kinds of statements behoove a judge to seek the continued incarceration of the defendant to serve out his entire sentence. To do otherwise, and release this person out into the general population clearly would have been the wrong thing to do.

    What exactly are the "implications" here, in your opinion? That judges can sometimes abuse their power? Of course that's wrong. But you can't tell me how that applies to Mr. Polanski's case. You can't tell me how the judge "abused his power". All you've given are some made up what-ifs about some poor black guy being unjustly accused of a crime he didn't commit and being persecuted by a dirty judge.

  22. Ah, but Polanski's case was most assuredly *not* a parole hearing, MM. He was let go on time served and judge decided that even though that's fine for some prisoners, for whatever reason, with Polanski, it wasn't. But that's not even the point. I took a very extreme, and yes, sympathetic, example case because it's one that's so common today! Justice is not the ideal or fair concept we think it should be. i was using a real world example of a completely innocent man going to jail for nothing. Because it most assuredly does happen. I used it to make a point. My point is that I'm not talking about Polanski. Remember when I said he can swing by his nuts for all I care? My point is about Justice. You say the judge was not going to renege on his deal, and that, in fact, Polanski did, but prisoners are let go early all the time. Do judges get involved in each of their cases? Or do judges pick and choose only those they feel strongly about? If it's the latter, they're wrong. That's the subjectivism I was alluding to and it can be a damned slippery slope.

    Listen, I'm going to cede the argument because I know and acknowledge your greater intelligence on the subject. But, if there was even a chance that the judge was going to change the terms of Polanski's deal, that's wrong. Not for Polanski (remember what I said about him), but for Justice. For the Genarlow Wilson's of the country.

    P.S. I still think you're the bee's knees, by the way. Just having some conversation here. ;-)

  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

  25. Okay, Mermaid is finally saying (now that she's got her act together...) Sorry for the interruptions, folks!

    No. Smag, Sugar Lamb, my one and only Diving Buddy and bestest pal under the waves, you are simply not correct.

    He was not "let go on time served." That was to be determined at his sentencing, which he fled. He was released early from his "psych eval". How much time he served was to be determined at his sentencing. Sentencing being the operative word.

    And the judge was going to decide that the reason it wasn't going to be "fine" for Mr. Polanski to be released early on time served was because Mr. Polanski made statements to the press that expressed lack of remorse and an absence of contrition ~ both of which are necessary for a defendant to be considered for early release for "time served."

    He made these statements to the press and it would have been much the same as if he's made them in front of a parole board where he was seeking early release, in theory. No contrition ~ no early release. That's how it works. Calling him onto the stand to verify the statements he made to the press would have been merely a formality.

    If you want to use a made up story about someone convicted of something they didn't do, although it's entertaining, it doesn't apply to this case. You might not be talking about Polanski, but I am. Can we confine the conversation to that, and what he did, please? Not some innocent black guy railroaded by The Man?

    Damn, Smagster! Bone up a little before you start slinging the sequinned bullcrap, will ya? Seriously.

    *sigh* This judge didn't "pick and choose" to get involved in this case. He was assigned the case, and it was still before him! You act like he had a personal vendetta against Mr. Polanski in being the judge assigned to his case!

    And we'll never know if the judge was going to be "wrong" or not. And if he had, he clearly would have committed a miscarriage of justice and been dealt with by the proper authorities. But the defendant's "fear" that the judge was going to do the wrong thing doesn't make it right for Mr. Polanski to use that as an excuse to evade his sentence, which was going to be 48 days in State prison. THAT is what Mr. Polanski was fearful of ~ and that's what he was fleeing.

    Got it, my Honey Bumpkin?

  26. MM, if we stick to this case and this case only, then I concede the argument. You are the winner. I know that winning and losing is not so much an important issue with Mermaids, who are known full for greeting either with a friendly, "Oh well." But still.

    I sincerely appreciate the education on the specifics of the case and I've enjoyed the back and forth. ;-)

  27. A delightful way to pass some time on this beautiful day in the lagoon, wouldn't you say, Smag? Your continued education is one of my primary goals, as you NEED schoolin'. Thanks for the wrestle, it's been fun. ;)

    Now... Who wants to play Marco Polo?

  28. Oooh! Can I argue with you now MM? Pleeeeeeease!

    You're wrong, you have NO idea what you're talking about! You...you...

    All right - I give up. You win.

    Smaggy - gave up kinda easy, didn't you? :-)

  29. Woody Allen signing a petition for leniency for a child molester. Fancy that. hat would be like Kenneth McDuff signing a petition for lenciency for a serial killer. Oops. Sorry. Woody Allen only RAISED his wife's daughter. He was never LEGALLY her father.

  30. The judge didn't renege. Prosecutors make deals and recommend those deals to the judges. The judges are under no oblication to accept the deal, and often choose not to. This is more well-publicised than most, but it's not that uncommon for the judge to toss out a deal.

  31. CoolOne, while I agree with you in terms of judges tossing a deal prior to the deal (because he/she didn't like the terms), if the deal was tossed out in this case, Polanski would have had the right to a trial as he did plead to a lesser charge as part of his deal. In other words, judges don't toss out deals after a plea is made under that deal (at least as far as I know--that would be a huge miscarriage of justice in my book). The deal is agreed to first, then the plea is entered under it.

    Where I was mistaken was in thinking that Polanski's time in the psych ward was a specific part of the sentence that had been agreed to in the deal. I thought that once Polanski got out of the ward, that was synonymous with an early release from serving time in prison. When, in fact, as MM so eloquently and gently taught me, the ward was only a wink/nod understanding as a surrogate for the 90 days of jail time Polanski would be sentenced to during the sentencing phase (which he was to receive as part of the plea bargain for pleading to a lesser charge). That's why I thought the judge reneged--because I thought the ward time was an agreed-to part of the sentence. I was wrong in that, but, I don't think that judges typically toss out deals that they've already agreed to! I don’t imagine they’d be on the bench very long if they did?