world news thread

[Aroha]

According to experts, *** offenses are more likely to be repeated with age. Just last month, an 83 year old was sent to jail for molesting his young neighbour 2 years previously. Joseph Fritzl was 73 when he was discovered to have imprisoned and repeatedly raped his own daughter - he'd also served time for rape in 1967.

And y'know what the big difference between Jackson and Polanski is? Jackson fronted up, appeared in court and was found not guilty. Whether you believe the verdict was right or wrong, he was prepared to face the music. Polanski pled GUILTY and then ran, even though his status and money had given him preferential treatment by the system - no other rapist and pedophile would have been offered 45 days in jail.

[Sprint_girl07]

Oh and for your information IP, it was under Bush that they set the ball rolling into catching him.

It just so happens that he set foot into one of the countries that could arrest and extradite him when Dems were in office.

Nothing to do with politics.

[Sprint_girl07]

Originally posted by Aroha:

And y'know what the big difference between Jackson and Polanski is? Jackson fronted up, appeared in court and was found not guilty. Whether you believe the verdict was right or wrong, he was prepared to face the music. Polanski pled GUILTY and then ran, even though his status and money had given him preferential treatment by the system - no other rapist and pedophile would have been offered 45 days in jail.

Exactly!!! But hey MJ was American, so in her eyes it isn't the same.

[Sprint_girl07]

So under the law, if he is extradited and finishes his time or whatever.. in the future will he be allowed back into the US or barred?

[Aroha]

There's actually been warrants out for years. It's not such a simple matter as a phone call - all the paperwork needs to be in order for someone to be arrested in another country and usually, they have an expiry date.

As I said earlier, Polanski obviously had a network of supporters able to provide him with inside information and he regularly cancelled trips to countries with an extradition treaty if he got wind of a possible arrest.

[Houston]

That's the virtue of the law. Rich or poor, black or white, it doesn't matter, if you commit a crime you have the same right to present a defense, just like anybody else.

The fact that he was rich only gives raise to the assumption that he could have actually presented a very good quality defense. Instead he chose to enter a plea.

He was not interested in justice, he wanted to save his own behind, and the flight to avoid the jurisdiction of the court is confirmation to that pathetic fact.

Now he wants mercy? Why? He had a chance to take responsibility and didn't, instead, he ran away ignoring the law, the rights of his victim, exposing all that came in contact with him to criminal charges for aiding a criminal. He didn't care, why should we?

[Sprint_girl07]

Originally posted by davdah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
I am not trying to defend what he has done, I've made it pretty clear.

And I also pointed out the justice system in this country is broken, and certain classes of people in this country ARE immune from the law, such as Bush & co. Justice is NOT same for all.
And your outrage is fake to say the least, considering what your own conduct has been like, acting like the moral persons you deem yourself to be, is more than laughable.

Who else was immune and lacked outrage against? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think she thinks she is lol

[Houston]

If you want to know where Bush lives, or where Clinton lives, all you have to do is ask. Their info is now a matter of public record. If there is an indictment, there will be little difficulty in locating them and arresting them.

The other guy is a coward, he ran away precisely because he didn't want to get caught, moved to a country where he couldn't be apprehended, did all he could to avoid the consequences of his own actions.

Bush is there, if no indictment is produced you can blame the DOJ, but not Bush. He is not running away.

[Houston]

I support whatever law is the result of a democratic process. The law is one and must be obeyed. If you want change in the law persuade others to vote and change it.

Not you, not Polanski, nobody is allowed to pick and chose laws to obey and laws to disregard. It's simply not your call. Democracy works by allowing people to determine their own fate, and there are always channels to alter that course if people so desire. This is not anarchy, this is a system of ordered liberty, and for it to work there must be rules, if you don't want to play by them you can always go elsewhere.

[Hudson]

Originally posted by 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,
I am not saying he is being sneaky. He pled guilty to a class A misdemeanor. Although the specific crime had an indefinite life, the generally agreed sentencing guidelines for offense was usually probation, even thoguh the hypothetical maximum sentence was 50 years. Now, that same offense has a maximum penalty of 4 years.

The other problem is that at the time of the plea bargan, the psychiatrists from both Chino State Prision and another psychiatrist recommended probation.

Now, getting with the fleeing from a crime, the state will add to the plea agreeement in state court when he is extradicted; htus the federal case will be moot. Second, it could add to the already agreed plea arrangement, then he may serve jail, may serve probation, or may serve a combination of the two. My guess is he probably will serve a very minimum jail time, less than a year, plus fines and restitution. At least that is my take.

The other problem is what to do with the plea agreement. If you do not hold the plea agreement, then do you hold a sentencing hearing on a misdeamenor offense? Or do you null and void the plaa agreement altogether, which means he has not been found guilty of anything. If so, then the prosecution will have a hard time to get a conviction. If acquitted, then the federal crime of fleeing becomes null and void due to double jeapordy.

[Aroha]

He plead guilty but had not been officially sentenced.

[Hudson]

Originally posted by davdah:
if he was already found guilty and the punishment handed down there wouldn't necessarily be a second trial for the prior conviction. He would be tried for new charges on top of the ones already convicted of.

Yes Davdah and Aroha, he has pleaded guilty to a lesser offense under a plea bargain arrangement. However, a judge can reject (a rare occurrence) a plea bargain or the new prosecution can reject a plea bargain (at least that is what some prosecutors have said).

Again, if the court accepts the guilty plea to a lesser offense, a misdemeanor and we follow established procedures in 1977, then the plea bargain should remain intact. Should it not? If the prosecution revokes the plea bargain, has the defendant really plead guilty to a crime?

It is not as simple as he has plead guilty because we really do not know if he plead guilty under an offense contract or a sentencing contract.

I am not defending the guy Davdah and Aroha, but I do find the legal predictament fascinating. Most of this is really murky water.

[OldE]

Hehehe

[Hudson]

Originally posted by davdah:
I get it, so the original plea wasn't completed then. If not then they should bring him in and cut his b.alls off and 40 lashes. That would be my plea bargain if I were the prosecution,...next case.

Why be so kind Davdah?

[Houston]

Hudson,

Most plea agreements are just that, an agreement, subject to conditions. If you get a charge dismissed and one reduced to the "lesser included offense" (that's the only acceptable plea) then you must plea of guilty. The purpose of most agreements is to ensure a conviction and allow for a smoother, quicker, less traumatic process and, in cases such as the present one, spare the victim the pain associated with the right of the accused to confront the accuser in court.

When it comes to double jeopardy, it's a tricky question, all the state needs to show is that the offense is not the same one previously charged. There are plenty of federal charges that can be brought against this person without double jeopardy implications.

Regarding unlawful flight, most states charge contempt. Others could charge obstruction. The "unlawful flight" is basically one that's uniquely federal and the purpose of the statute is to provide assistance to states by giving the Marshals power to arrest for the specific crime (under the unlawful flight pretext) regardless of any geographical implications, this prevents a fugitive from avoiding the consequences of criminal acts by simply crossing state lines.