Movie director Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland for 31-year-old charge

Stefan

Resident Forum Reference Librarian
20 Year Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2002
Posts
1,528
Article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090927/ap_on_en_mo/eu_switzerland_polanski


Documentary about the case:

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1706557,00.html


I think this has been mischaracterized as a statutory case. It actually sounds like a textbook rape using drugs and liquor to ply the young teen. Unfortunately it also seems highly likely that the court system made a lot of mistakes in how they approached the case. It sounds like he was offered a plea bargain and the judge reneged on it. Either way, the world perception of the United States will probably further suffer because of this case.
 
Last edited:

Highlander67

Sultan of Slugs
Joined
Feb 23, 2001
Posts
2,565
Stefan,

no offense, but the fact this scumbag fled the country to escape his trial and sentencing throws any credability and remorse right out the window. He took advantage of a helpless girl, tricked her into thinking she was gonna be a star then raped her. He even paid her off with an unreported amount of money to possibly get the charges dropped. If you add the fact he has been evading the law for 31+ years does not make the crime better.

Sorry, I hope he goes up the river.
 
Last edited:

Taiso

No, you may not ask what part of Greece I'm from!
25 Year Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2000
Posts
19,388
Gifted film maker whose movies I will never pay to see. If somebody else wants to rent them or give the movies to me for free, I'll watch them because he is a talented film maker.

But as for this case, I'm of the opinion that he should have been nailed for this 31 years ago.
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
25 Year Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Posts
60,434
There is a point at which justice is moot. That point long passed with Polanski. Pursuing this old man is worthless. The girl got what she wanted. Now some prosecutors in the US will try to get what they want - notoriety off a high profile case.
 

SML

NEANDERTHAL FUCKER,
20 Year Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Posts
12,796
Had Polanski not pled guilty, how long ago would the statute of limitations have run out?
 

Lagduf

2>X
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Posts
51,317
His victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself publicly, sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement. But she has since joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over and at one point offering to come to court in Polanski's place to argue for dismissal.

If true, then just drop the charges.
 

Lagduf

2>X
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Posts
51,317
Polanski has already been convicted, though.

I guess I meant just dismiss his sentence.

He'll still be a convicted rapist. Presumably he has been a fugitive felon all these past years.

But seriously, why didn't they actively try to arrest him in the years immediately following his flight? Extradition be damned, should've just hired some Israeli's to snatch him up from France. They're pros at kidnapping.

Why care now, instead of 30 years ago?
 
Last edited:

Lagduf

2>X
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Posts
51,317
I could be wrong (Calling the Bobak Signal) but with this kind of charge and even murder charges, there is no statute of limitation.

It would vary by the state. I thought there was, generally, a statute of limitations on rape cases though?
 

Highlander67

Sultan of Slugs
Joined
Feb 23, 2001
Posts
2,565
There is a point at which justice is moot. That point long passed with Polanski. Pursuing this old man is worthless. The girl got what she wanted. Now some prosecutors in the US will try to get what they want - notoriety off a high profile case.

Charlie,

I usually agree with you on most things, but what if you had a daughter (not sure if you actually do) was molested by Polanski? Would your opinion be the same? The girl wants the charges dropped because she was paid off. Though they say time can heal all wounds, it shouldn't be accepetable for someone that seduced and took advantage of a young girl.
 

Highlander67

Sultan of Slugs
Joined
Feb 23, 2001
Posts
2,565
It would vary by the state. I thought there was, generally, a statute of limitations on rape cases though?

I'm not sure. But as far as I'm aware, he was convicted, and sentencing was not given therefore he has not served anytime for his crime. What he would of gotten is a moot point since he left and decided to never return. Whatever sentencing he would of gotten can and probably will be increased since he evaded the authorities.
 

Lagduf

2>X
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Posts
51,317
Though they say time can heal all wounds, it shouldn't be accepetable for someone that seduced and took advantage of a young girl.

No one believes it to be acceptable.

There comes a time though when you just have to realize you fucked up and should have caught the guy years ago. There was ample time in the past to do so.

What is the value in locking up an old man?

Maybe this isn't the best example of a case like this, but i was always baffled when the US Government arrested ex-Nazis who were in their 80s and 90s for war crimes.

There comes to a time to forgive, but that in no way, shape, or form implies we should forget what crimes they carried out.
 

Highlander67

Sultan of Slugs
Joined
Feb 23, 2001
Posts
2,565
No one believes it to be acceptable.

There comes a time though when you just have to realize you fucked up and should have caught the guy years ago. There was ample time in the past to do so.

What is the value in locking up an old man?

Maybe this isn't the best example of a case like this, but i was always baffled when the US Government arrested ex-Nazis who were in their 80s and 90s for war crimes.

There comes to a time to forgive, but that in no way, shape, or form implies we should forget what crimes they carried out.

Considering he fled off to France and lived in countries that would not extradite him, would seem to be the reason he wasn't caught. Though I don't know all teh details of the arrest, I am only going but what I have read.

So how about this, why not give him what his original sentencing would of been plus a month for every year he was dodging his 1977 arrest warrant?

Being a film maker and even considered brilliant by some still doesn't change what he has done nor should it erase his sentencing.
 

aria

Former Moderator
Joined
Dec 4, 1977
Posts
39,546
That Yahoo/AP article doesn't do a good job of explaining the full background, the Time article only touches on a few more points.

I'd read another article on this --the interesting part, to me, was that his sentence was supposed to be an additional 40-50 days in jail. It's not like he was going to the chair or something. He had already been in jail for almost the same amount of time. From what it appears, he was angry about how his trial was handled (and people in the know seem to agree that it wasn't handled well). Meanwhile, I agree with some of the opinions in the articles that he's probably had just as much (probably more) punishment having to deal with exile and the well-publicized blemish on his name than a mere 45 day incarceration.

The original judge, who was probably committing judicial misconduct, is now long dead.
 

Highlander67

Sultan of Slugs
Joined
Feb 23, 2001
Posts
2,565
Also to according to Wikipedia

Polanski was initially charged[32] 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 had more charges but they dropped them for a plea bargain that he accepted, but he didn't do the time for the crime. So so I said, give him is original punishment plus time for evading his arrest and time he would of gotten in jail.
 

aria

Former Moderator
Joined
Dec 4, 1977
Posts
39,546
Also to according to Wikipedia

Polanski was initially charged[32] 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 had more charges but they dropped them for a plea bargain that he accepted, but he didn't do the time for the crime. So so I said, give him is original punishment plus time for evading his arrest and time he would of gotten in jail.

I think he'll only get jail for leaving the country. It sounds like his original charges could be thrown out because of misconduct on the judge and prosecutor.
 

Highlander67

Sultan of Slugs
Joined
Feb 23, 2001
Posts
2,565
That Yahoo/AP article doesn't do a good job of explaining the full background.

I'd read another article on this --the interesting part, to me, was that his sentence was supposed to be an additional 40-50 days in jail. It's not like he was going to the chair or something. He had already been in jail for almost the same amount of time. From what it appears, he was angry about how his trial was handled (and people in the know seem to agree that it wasn't handled well). Meanwhile, I agree with some of the opinions in the articles that he's probably had just as much (probably more) punishment having to deal with exile and the well-publicized blemish on his name than a mere 45 day incarceration.

Then that just makes it more of a decision of idiotacy on his part. If he left the country over finishing an aditional 45 days of jail, then he gets what he deserves what he gets for not finishing his sentence.
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
25 Year Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Posts
60,434
Charlie,

I usually agree with you on most things, but what if you had a daughter (not sure if you actually do) was molested by Polanski? Would your opinion be the same? The girl wants the charges dropped because she was paid off. Though they say time can heal all wounds, it shouldn't be accepetable for someone that seduced and took advantage of a young girl.

That's just it though - statutory rape is usually something pursued by parents. But at the same time, statutory rape is a symbol of parents having failed. The real criminals in a statutory rape case are the parents.

Let's distinguish this from rape per se. A rapist is a rapist and can go to hell. A statutory rapist isn't a person who rapes, but who has consensual sex with a minor - a minor whose parents don't consent.

If you raise a girl and she fucks some older guy while she's still really young, you have to ask whether or not you have failed your job at parenting.

Polanski did a creepy thing, but the girl's parents should be sent to the electric chair and burned alive!
 

aria

Former Moderator
Joined
Dec 4, 1977
Posts
39,546
Here's that article I read with more background:

Polanski arrested in connection with sex charge

Filmmaker Roman Polanski has been arrested on an arrest warrant stemming from a decades-old sex charge, Swiss police said Sunday.

The Academy Award-winning director pleaded guilty in 1977 to a single count of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, acknowledging he had sex with a 13-year-old girl, but fled the United States before he could be sentenced. U.S. authorities issued a warrant for his arrest in 1978.

He was taken into custody trying to enter Switzerland on Saturday, Zurich police said.

Polanski, 76, has lived in France for decades to avoid being arrested if he enters the U.S. He declined to collect his Academy Award for Best Director in person when he won it for "The Pianist" in 2003.

He was en route to the Zurich Film Festival, which is holding a tribute to him, when he was arrested by Swiss authorities, the festival said.

Polanski was nominated for best director Oscars for "Tess" and "Chinatown," and for best writing for "Rosemary's Baby," which he also directed.

"Roman Polanski, who is one of the greatest film directors of all time, would have been honored for his life's work in Zurich today," the film festival said in a statement.

"However yesterday, on Saturday, he was taken into custody while attempting to enter Switzerland due to a request by U.S. authorities in connection with an arrest warrant from 1978."

The Swiss Justice Ministry said Polanski was put "in provisional detention." But whether he can be extradited to the United States "can be established only after the extradition process judicially has been finalised," a ministry spokesman said in an e-mail.

"It is possible to appeal at the federal penal court of justice against an arrest warrant in view to extradition as well as against an extradition decision," the spokesman wrote. "Their decisions can be taken further to the federal court of justice."

Polanski was accused of plying a 13-year-old girl with champagne and a sliver of a quaalude tablet and performing various sex acts, including intercourse, with her during a photo shoot at actor Jack Nicholson's house. He was 43 at the time.

Nicholson was not at home, but his girlfriend at the time, actress Anjelica Huston, was.

According to a probation report contained in the filing, Huston described the victim as "sullen."

"She appeared to be one of those kind of little chicks between -- could be any age up to 25. She did not look like a 13-year-old scared little thing," Huston said.

She added that Polanski did not strike her as the type of man who would force himself on a young girl.

"I don't think he's a bad man," she said in the report. "I think he's an unhappy man."

Polanski pleaded guilty to a single count of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

There have been repeated attempts to settle the case over the years, but the sticking point has always been Polanski's refusal to return to attend hearings.

Prosecutors have consistently argued that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow a man to go free who "drugged and raped a 13-year-old child."

Polanski's lawyers tried earlier this year to have the charges thrown out, but a Los Angeles judge rejected the request.

In doing so, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza left the door open to reconsider his ruling if Polanski shows up in court.

Espinoza also appeared to acknowledge problems with the way Polanski's case was handled years ago.

According to court documents, Polanski, his lawyer and the prosecutor thought they'd worked out a deal that would spare Polanski from prison and let the young victim avoid a public trial.

But the original judge in the case, who is now dead, first sent the director to maximum-security prison for 42 days while he underwent psychological testing. Then, on the eve of his sentencing, the judge told attorneys he was inclined to send Polanski back to prison for another 48 days.

Polanski fled the United States for France, where he was born.

In the February hearing, Espinoza mentioned a documentary film that depicts backroom deals between prosecutors and a media-obsessed judge who was worried his public image would suffer if he didn't send Polanski to prison.

"It's hard to contest some of the behavior in the documentary was misconduct," said Espinoza.

But he declined to dismiss the case entirely.

Legal experts said such a ruling would have been extremely rare.

Polanski's victim is among those calling for the case to be tossed out.

Samantha Geimer filed court papers in January saying, "I am no longer a 13-year-old child. I have dealt with the difficulties of being a victim, have surmounted and surpassed them with one exception.

"Every time this case is brought to the attention of the Court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others. That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case."

Geimer, now 45, married and a mother of three, sued Polanski and received an undisclosed settlement. She long ago came forward and made her identity public -- mainly, she said, because she was disturbed by how the criminal case had been handled.

Following Espinoza's ruling earlier this year, Geimer's lawyer, Larry Silver, said he was disappointed and that Espinoza "did not get to the merits and consider the clear proof of both judicial and prosecutorial corruption."

He argued in court that had "Mr. Polanski been treated fairly" his client would not still be suffering because of publicity almost 32 years after the crime.

Polanski was arrested two days after one of his wife's killers died.

The director's pregnant wife, actress Sharon Tate, and four others were butchered by members of the Manson "family" in August 1969. Polanski was filming in Europe at the time.

By her own admission, Susan Atkins held the eight-months-pregnant Tate down as she pleaded for mercy, stabbing the 26-year-old actress 16 times.

Atkins, 61, died Thursday. She had been suffering from terminal brain cancer.
 

SML

NEANDERTHAL FUCKER,
20 Year Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Posts
12,796
That's just it though - statutory rape is usually something pursued by parents. But at the same time, statutory rape is a symbol of parents having failed. The real criminals in a statutory rape case are the parents.

Let's distinguish this from rape per se. A rapist is a rapist and can go to hell. A statutory rapist isn't a person who rapes, but who has consensual sex with a minor - a minor whose parents don't consent.

If you raise a girl and she fucks some older guy while she's still really young, you have to ask whether or not you have failed your job at parenting.

Polanski did a creepy thing, but the girl's parents should be sent to the electric chair and burned alive!

She was drugged?
 

aria

Former Moderator
Joined
Dec 4, 1977
Posts
39,546
I just love the fact that Jack Nicolson and Anjelica Houston were married at one point, and it happened at their house.
 

Highlander67

Sultan of Slugs
Joined
Feb 23, 2001
Posts
2,565
That's just it though - statutory rape is usually something pursued by parents. But at the same time, statutory rape is a symbol of parents having failed. The real criminals in a statutory rape case are the parents.

Let's distinguish this from rape per se. A rapist is a rapist and can go to hell. A statutory rapist isn't a person who rapes, but who has consensual sex with a minor - a minor whose parents don't consent.

If you raise a girl and she fucks some older guy while she's still really young, you have to ask whether or not you have failed your job at parenting.

Polanski did a creepy thing, but the girl's parents should be sent to the electric chair and burned alive!

How is it consensual sex if he used Drugs (Quaaludes) and alcohol to have sex with her? I would agree that if she was completely for it, then it changes the scope of the matter, but according to Wiikipedia, she didn't even want to go back to see him after the first photo shoot. So how is she consenting to this?

I do agree that her parents really need to be punished for allowing her to go back to see him for the second shoot.
 
Top