world news thread

[Aroha]

Technically, he didn't serve his full sentence - even if the judge honored the plea agreement, there's still 3 days outstanding. Not much, no, but he wasn't actually sentenced and judges have every right to reject a plea deal if they believe it's too lenient and not in the public interest. In this case, allegedly, the judge had been given photos of Polanski with other young girls and if that's true, the judge had reason to believe he was a danger to the public and would re-offend. Sure enough, 2 years later, Polanski was in a relationship with a 15 year old.

It's also not like Polanski lived footloose and fancy free. Sure, he made millions, but he was very, very careful to evade capture. He never visited countries where arrest was most likely, such as the UK. He also repeatedly cancelled trips to other countries (including Switzerland) if he believed that an arrest was being planned - he obviously had a large network of people able to provide him with inside information, even if they dropped the ball at the end.

Hudson, I agree with you that there are different rules for the rich and famous. If this was just some guy that lived down the street, it would have been a different story - nobody would be baying for release or pulling out lines about 'blood thirsty mobs'. While it may be the reality, it does not, under any circumstances, make it right and it certainly sends a terrible message to the rest of us. Criminals do not get to decide their own fate. If they did, then the Polish Fritzl could well be living in the US next week.

[Hudson]

Originally posted by Houston:
We both know, Hudson that he committed unlawful flight, a federal crime.

And it's not the first time the Feds charge after some problem in state courts, Federal law is humongous and the reach of congress is virtually unlimited thanks to the Commerce Clause (let's see if the Court keeps restricting that after Lopez).

If they didn't charge, doesn't mean they couldn't charge. Of course, no offense could apply retroactively, but there are many, many federal crimes that could apply to that guy.

The already have jurisdiction because of the flight, only thing needed is creativity and a nice indictment.

There are state laws regarding unlawful flgith. The only reason for unlawful flight which the FED can charge is that he crossed state lines.

But if you want some interesting reading, read this Houston.

[Houston]

The Federal justification for unlawful flight has been clearly stated, it's a mechanism to prevent criminals from escaping the law by simply moving to a different state.

It's also known that the "fugitive of law" status was designed to impose severe consequences upon those who simply evade justice for whatever reason. Nobody in this country is convicted without an opportunity to defend themselves, that's the very definition of Due Process, so there's no excuse, none whatsoever, to simply ignore the law and do as you please.

In a few words, being sneaky does not pay, or shouldn't according to the law.

Throughout the history of the United States many individuals have been affected by unfair statutes and flawed process, and many landmark opinions come directly from those cases; from Gideon to Miranda and Lawrence. One thing is clear, those individuals who were victims of a flawed regulation did the right thing, the appealed the case, they didn't try escape justice.

Everybody knows what's going on here. The guy didn't simply felt wronged, he just felt trapped in a corner because of his own actions and decided to escape, to avoid the consequences of what he did. He has no right to decide what justice is, it's not a call he is entitled to make. Right or wrong, there are mechanisms available to all convicts as a matter of law to dispute these kinds of irregularities, if they occurred at all.

Nothing prevented the convict from raising a challenge in a court of appeals. Related issues have been brought up in California in Ewing, dealing directly with wobbler offenses and sentencing enhancements, and federally in Booker, dealing with sentencing guidelines. He was entitled to raise a similar challenge as a matter of right.

Unlawful flight should be the least of his concerns. Even the law should not come to his mind before his moral obligation to make restitution to the victim of his actions. But like most criminals who act on purpose, he is not concerned with others as much as he is with himself. He simply doesn't care.

This is not a guy accused of something, he was TRIED AND CONVICTED. He most obviously had the means to present a very substantial defense and that failed, he was not some indigent down on his luck but a person with means and the capability to make the most out of his opportunity to defend himself, an opportunity he didn't afford to his MINOR victim.

If he's been in hell haunted by some dark cloud is because of his own actions. When I see cases like this I don't feel sorry for the perpetrator, but for the victim who has to wait for decades for justice to be served and closure.

He is GUILTY of the crime, and instead of facing the law he simply ignored it. The reasons why he did that are beyond argument, what matters here is his attitude towards his victim, towards the law and society in general.

His conduct was willful and it shows by his own actions, the only "mistake" he made was to think he could escape the long arm of the law.

[Houston]

Money?

For a lot of people a million dollars is loose change, they're happy to pay that just to see the problem go away, that's the degree of respect he had for the victim.

If he was innocent, why he ran away? If he was innocent, why did he pay the victim?

Thirty years ago or one, it makes no difference, the virtue of the Fugitive is not in evading the law but in accepting it and the consequences of his actions.

The longer he manages to escape through artifice and maneuver, the longer he demonstrates he has absolutely no respect for the law or the rights of others.

[Houston]

It's not up to him to decide if he has not paid the price, not up to you, me or nobody else but the Jury who tried him, found him guilty, and the judge who sentenced him.

He evaded the punishment imposed. Simple. He had no right to do that, and I couldn't care less about his history of tragic events. All those, if true, were considered at trial, and if he didn't bring him up that's his fault, his choice, not mine.

The facts of the matter are simple, he was found guilty and evaded punishment. I don't have to judge him, he was already judged and found GUILTY.

[ProudUSC]

The US locks up more people convicted of non-violent crimes than other countries, thus the higher prisoner population. The sentences are normally longer than other countries too. In some countries (China), the penalties are so severe, people think twice before committing a crime. China has a smaller prisoner population because they 'eliminate' the need for a jail cell. On the other hand, the US will house prisoners who have been sentenced to death for years and years before carrying out the sentences (example: The 'beltway sniper' who terrorized the DC area 8 years ago and killed 10 people finally has an execution date on November 10, 2009.) Had this happened in China, he probably would have been executed the day of his sentencing.

[Houston]

He didn't protest his conviction, he entered a guilty plea only because he thought he could get off easily. But then he simply ignore the law. He has shown no mercy on the child he raped, no real remorse, no respect for the law. Now he's fighting against his extradition? So, obviously, process and courts and law are only good when they serve him.

The problem for him is that this is not a country that justifies crime. You do the crime, you do the time, and if you don't like that the door's always open.

[Sprint_girl07]

From what I read, if correct..Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor.
These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

He got scared, thinking he would serve a long term in jail and maybe be mistreated (due to his parents past) so he fled.

He wanted the plea bargain, yet he still fled for a lesser charge.

[Sprint_girl07]

The girl not only repeatedly said NO, she even had to fake an asthma attack so he could take her home.

If a child said NO to him and he still carried on, how many adult women said NO to him and he ignored their pleas?

Who knows what skeletons are in his closet. As Aroha mentioned, it didn't take him long before he went after a 15yr old.

Even if he was in France at the time, this would have been illegal there too. Either way he would have served time if he had not fled to a country that wouldn't extradite him.


They have been waiting for years for him to step foot in a country that would extradite him. Finally he stepped foot in Switzerland and they were waiting for him.

He has been on the Interpol list for some years. Before that he was too scared to go over the border.

I think pretty much he could only go to Germany, Czech and France.

[Houston]

It doesn't matter, this is not about what he can do now, it's about what he did! NOBODY is immune from the law!

The 13 year old girl wasn't a danger to anybody, and he acted on her. What about HER rights? I guess she doesn't have the right to see to it those who perpetrated the crime get punished. That is a distorted sense of justice. Justice is the same for all, he did the crime, he MUST pay for it, there is no way around that.

[Sprint_girl07]

I guess to you IP..someone who murdered someone 50 yrs ago and just got caught, should not be arrested either? If they were now 76, and done no wrong since, he should be let off too?

IP, if you had a daughter, I think you would think very different. Or maybe not actually..i forgot you like to fake rape to get attention. Enough said.

[ProudUSC]

Originally posted by iperson:
Leave Polanski ALONE!


I support him, I've met him, talked to him, got his autograph. And he's not a predator like Michael Jackson was.
Double standards anyone?

Isn't showing support for him the same as defending him?????

[Houston]

Why? Because people don't agree? Because people don't forget crime?

He is a criminal and he will pay, and whatever happens to him is nothing but the fruit of his own actions.

[Sprint_girl07]

So you say IP. To you everyone else acts immorally.

You just throw blame to others to disguise your disgusting and immoral conduct on here and in real life.

I would never use something so horrid as a way to get attention and sympathy from a man. It is women like you who cry wolf or make up stories to hurt someone, let off real rapists and abusers, because some people doubt them.

Laugh at victims why don't you, call them liars, support the criminals.. just goes to show how cold blooded you really are.

Thank god you are not a parent. You are one bad role model.

[Houston]

Bush and Co.... What does that have to do with anything?

Bush was the President of the United States, just like Bill Clinton before him. Do you know if the Attorney General is investigating? As you should know, arrest is not an immediate occurrence after a complaint, there must be an investigation, followed by indictment.

Michael Jackson was arrested, tried and found not guilty. This guy was arrested, tried and found GUILTY. Very different story.

He had money, resources, connections to mount a very strong defense, he failed. That, along with procedural safeguards that command every trial, is reason enough to say the man is guilty. His running away also reaffirms the conclusion of the jury.

There is no possible way to ignore this reality. He is a criminal, a fugitive by his own action, and there's nothing wrong in demanding punishment for the guilty.