There have been a international arrest warrant out for Polanski since 2005 but this time the US knew he was coming to Switzerland. I'm sure they leaned heavily on that neutral country and it worked, they finally got him. A job well done in my book.

Before anybody starts jumping to the conclusion that "the whole sodomy/drug angle is a straight-up lie", please read the victim's grand jury testimony and then let's talk again.

Statuatory rape implies consensual sex with a minor, but the sex in the case wasn't consensual. She said NO. That is rape. The lawyers involved then plea bargined it down to statuatory rape, probably in a hope to settle the matter quickly.

Whether he gets a fair trail is really irelevant because he has already pled guilty to the crime, he has already been convicted the crime. Now he just have to show up and do the time.

To say that this is a waste of money makes no sense to me. So if it's "too expensive" to persue a case the perpetrator should just be allowed to walk? What about the money already spent on this? Stopping now would be wasting them.

I hate to drag old Nazi war criminals into a case like this, but when I hear the "it was over 30 years ago" defense, I must shake my head. I love seeing these old Nazi fucks getting dragged home from South America, or where ever the hell they've been holed up, in order to face justice. While I'm not comparing the two crimes, the principle is the same.

I'm saying there is more important things America should be spending its money on.  Like paying off the enormous deficit left by the Bush years.  Like making sure everyone gets health care.

I don't think Polanski has gotten away with anything - this whole incident continues to affect his life and it has for more years than it would have if he had gone to prison.  

But he didn't kill anyone (Nazi war criminals did and it is unfair to make the comparison), Polanski hasn't been a problem for society since then, the girl who was the victim is leading a normal life and doesn't want to pursue it.

Why spend the money?

My problem is that people get emotional about things like this and common sense just seems to fly out the door.  Like what are you going to prove, Roman Polanski is a bad man. We already know that.



  

  

But what is 'common sense'?  One person's common sense is not always another person's common sense.

One person's common sense tells them that someone committed a crime, pled guilty, then skipped out.  Now that we've got him, we bring him back and let him do the time.

Another person's common sense tells them why spend the money on something the victim says they forgive the person for.

Each is considered common sense to the person thinking it, although the two ideas are diametrically opposed.

Will the real common sense please stand up?

Quoted from mcornetto I'm saying there is more important things America should be spending its money on.  Like paying off the enormous deficit left by the Bush years.  Like making sure everyone gets health care.

And persuing ONE ongoing criminal case will prevent that?

Quoted from mcornetto I don't think Polanski has gotten away with anything - this whole incident continues to affect his life and it has for more years than it would have if he had gone to prison.

Then he probably shouldn't have fled the country.

Quoted from mcornetto But he didn't kill anyone (Nazi war criminals did and it is unfair to make the comparison)

Which is why I didn't compare the crimes.

Quoted from sniper And persuing ONE ongoing criminal case will prevent that?

With the media that surrounds it it's going to be a hell of an expensive case.  You're kidding yourself if you think it isn't.  

Who is going to pay for the crowd control? You think there won't be crowds?

Granted it doesn't hold a candle to those other expenses but it is one that can be avoided and every penny counts, you know.

Quoted from sniper Then he probably shouldn't have fled the country.

If you think he's had a free existence since then think again.  He's been restricted from entering many countries for fear of capture and probably for the first few years at least he lived in constant fear.  I'm sure life wasn't pleasant for him on the run.  Granted he wasn't in a prison which means the US did not have to pay for his upkeep.  
  

Quoted from sniper Which is why I didn't compare the crimes.

Yeah you did.  You compared them based on the "30 year" thing.

Quoted from steven8 One person's common sense tells them that someone committed a crime, pled guilty, then skipped out.  Now that we've got him, we bring him back and let him do the time.

That isn't common sense, that's machismo.

Quoted from mcornetto That isn't common sense, that's machismo.

Ah, but that's your interpretation of what that person considers common sense thinking.  I'm not condoning or condemning either thought process.  Merely observing.

Quoted from mcornetto With the media that surrounds it it's going to be a hell of an expensive case.  You're kidding yourself if you think it isn't.   Who is going to pay for the crowd control? You think there won't be crowds? Granted it doesn't hold a candle to those other expenses but it is one that can be avoided and every penny counts, you know.

You're assuming there's gonna be a trail. He was already convicted.

Quoted from mcornetto If you think he's had a free existence since then think again.  He's been restricted from entering many countries for fear of capture and probably for the first few years at least he lived in constant fear.  I'm sure life wasn't pleasant for him on the run.  Granted he wasn't in a prison which means the US did not have to pay for his upkeep.

On the run? He's not exactly Richard Kimble this guy. He fled to France cos' he's a French citizen. The French don't extradite their own citizens. Until 2005, he was able to travel anywhere in the world, exept the US and the UK. I wouldn't exactly call that being "on the run". And if it was such a huge unbearable burden on him, why didn't he use his common sense? Do the time and get it over with.
  

Quoted from mcornetto Yeah you did.  You compared them based on the "30 year" thing.

Not their crimes (which I wrote - go back and check if you must), the fact that they thought they could get away with it.

Quoted from Steven8 One person's common sense tells them that someone committed a crime, pled guilty, then skipped out.  Now that we've got him, we bring him back and let him do the time.

Quoted from mcornetto That isn't common sense, that's machismo.

Some might even go as far as calling it, idunno, justice?

Rob, what the hell bro?
You're acting like he raped you.

Everyone is talking as though he has to be punished as if he has got away with it.

What exactly has he got away with?

Let us say he did stand trial originally and was sent to prison, how long would he have actually served? 2 years, 3 years? In a facility no worse than a holiday camp. He would have been let out, re-introduced into society and eventually let back into the 'Hollywood Inside' where no doubt he would have had a successful career in movies.

So where has he been for 30 years? In hiding in France, unable to go back to the US, not even to visit  the grave of his wife who along with his unborn child was murdered by Charles Manson. Unable to make the movies he wanted, unable to get the most out of his talent, unable to work with the people he wants to work with.

He has undoubtedly had 30 years of punishment for his crime, far more and far worse than had he actually gone to jail. So all this talk of him having got of scott free is simply not true.

It all boils down to what you believe the prison system is for..


Is it simple punishment? to deprive an offender of his lifestyle? Because if that is the case then he has surely served far many more years than his prison sentence would have been.

Is it rehabilitation? Well, at 74 years old and 30 years after the crime it is a little late now.

Is it to keep a dangerous offender off the streets? Certainly not the case here.

So what purpose would sending a 74 year old man to jail actually serve in this case?

He has served a far greater punishment than most murderers. That surely is enough?

Quoted from chism Rob, what the hell bro? You're acting like he raped you.

Not at all, Matt, I'm just saying "if you do the crime, you do the time". I think that's pretty fundamental in free societies such as ours. I just can see no reason for him to be given a pass for this crime. Whether is was a long time ago or that it brought burdens upon him is irelevant to me cos' he himself chose to make it so.

He's not the victim in this case and I don't understand why someone would even consider treating him as such.

That's the way I see this case. Others see it in another way, that's cool, we're all entitled to our opinions, I'm just yet to see any valid arguments for given him a freebie.

I agree with you Rob. He's lucky he's only facing jail time. It could be worse.

Quoted Text

Machismo? Wow, it's getting emotional to dish out that term.

Common sense out the window? An odd insinuation loaded in there somewhere. Personally, I am befuddled by those two claims.

Mike, if you pay taxes, then apologies. However, if we avoided prosecuting criminals on that basis - where is society heading?

There is nothing remotely emotional - and the inference is infact clouded judgment - in wanting to see a man tried for his crimes. Raping a girl of 13 deserves a proper trial to ascertain guilt. Should a rapist not serve time, and have an expiration date on when he enters jail? That's the logic put forth.

Is 42 days sufficient for a rapist? That's all he has served, and that was for "testing". Living out your life as a 'refugee', and not as a 'fugitive' - words from an American journo - that's how the media differ in representation. This isn't an issue to politicise, but a simple matter of justice. Unfortunately, leading French politicians are leaning towards the former with public pronouncements about 'mean America',  some Americans are politicising this by making it European v American cultural views, as captured by a piece in Time Online. This is the wrong way to look at it - all I am concerned is that when young children are raped/molested, then there is not a precedent that says if you are talented, and have evaded capture for 31 years, then you will escape punishment, or a trial. Can we not all agree on that?

Core fact is that everyone feels a rapist should serve time for his crime. Really, in lieu  - and none provided thus far - of a rational reason as to why not, then I don't see what the debate is.

Andrew

How is it that Polanski has been arrested yet Bob Saget is still walking around a free man? It is common knowledge that Bob Saget raped and killed a girl in 1990, yet he has never had to face the music.

Bring Saget to justice!