Roman Polanski, or pardon me but your poll is in my neck.

also, can we get the Swiss to arrest Kissinger?

this would be kinda awesome. except that there's no warrant for Kissinger's arrest lolz

X-post - It could also have to do with the recent movie re: Polanski, which goes to GREAT lengths to paint him in a very sympathetic light w/r/t his personal history, the Tate murder, the judicial screwing around with the case, etc.

Look - no one is saying that he hasn't led a difficult, roller coaster life - Holocaust, wife murdered, etc. But he raped a 13yo. Fuck him and his difficult life.

Morbs, you're making the same dumbass arguments that the actors are - the lack of punishment for some egregious crimes doesn't mean we should ignore them all. I think Kissinger's head on a pike would be lovely - but it's not going to happen, and that in no way excuses a child rapist from punishment.

he has to be in a country that will extradite and will arrest him on behalf of the US

Uh yeah, but doesn't he own a home in Switzerland? I assume he's been there at least once in the last 31 years.

Switzerland doesn't allow for extradition

there's no warrant for Kissinger's arrest

There has been (not from America obv), and there could be more.

I am not excusing rape; I'm an agnostic on what should happen to RP at this point.

they had to know ahead of time to have the warrant ready. i would say this is explained upthread but i think this is just a repeating thread all over

(whoops excuse me, i guess it's France that does that--not sure about Switzerland)

this would be kinda awesome. except that there's no warrant for Kissinger's arrest lolz

I've read that Chile is very close to issuing one.

"Polanski featured in a national database listing people wanted abroad for crimes, but his name was one of thousands. Stefan von Below, a cantonal police spokesman said officers do not "actively hunt" down people unless they know exactly when and where that person will be.

So until someone tipped off Swiss authorities that the director would be landing at Zurich airport on September 26 en route to a festival honouring his work, Polanski was largely free to lay Swiss roots. After four decades, they'd grown deep."

Still something odd going on here

who cares though, is the thing

^

like everyone is making these arguments at how outrageous the judge acted, how he's a filmmaker for god's sake, but the thing is it doesn't change what he did.

France does extradite, but doesn't have to extradite its own nationals to the US. A Kissinger warrant has been threatened for years.

People who think prosecution by whim is wrong, mebbe? xxp

anyhoo, fuckittybye

fuck kitty?

the SWISS BANKERS are getting LEANED ON by obama's SOCIALIST GOONS so they did him FAVOR by knocking his GOVT HEALTHSCARE TAKEOVER out of the news, even though it looks like they TOOK DOWN a notorious LEFTIST PERVERT

Missile shields, Iranian nuclear programme, it's all coming together

one leftist pervert down, millions to go amirite

Who are you calling a leftist, thangyewverymuchyou'vebeenawunnerfulaudience

"Prosecution by whim" doesn't even begin to come close to accurately describing a case in which someone was properly indicted by a grand jury, charged with a felony, allowed to plead guilty to a lesser felony, then fled before sentencing. It's very nearly the exact opposite, in fact.

I think the questionable thing is why it took them 31 years to get round to finding where and when he was at any given time

it's questionable i guess but has no real relevance, there are many cases that pick up steam years later because of a fresh focus or a new person on the case or whatever

Guys, let's drive to L.A. and ask to serve in the jury pool.

and even if it's a "conspiracy", the conspiracy's "endgame" appears to be "hey let's get that rapist!"

prosecution "by whim" ie randomly seems like it would produce better outcomes than the classist racist control mechanism we're getting now

11 guilty votes, and one vote for "don't you obama hustlees have anything better to do than convict a director of a crime from before half of you were born?"

The idea of Roman Polanski incarcerated is an anathema and a situation that we, who have the privilege of making movies, cannot tolerate.

This passage has received more than enough attention, but too much of it directed at "we, who have the privilege of making movies." The crux is "Roman Polanski incarcerated is an anathema and a situation that we ... cannot tolerate". In totally ignoring the circumstances of his incarceration, it becomes an argument that Polanski's art places him in a special class of people, people who not only receive special treatment, but rightly deserve it. And as it speaks from membership in his class to the rest of the world, it amounts to an elite's passionate defense of their own privileged difference. It's almost shocking to hear it stated so plainly. Like reading that wingnut's call for Obama to be overthrown in a military coup.

This is to my mum and dad and to my Roman Polanski incarcerated.

the idea that Whoopi Goldberg is incarcerated at "The View" is an anathema, and a situation that we, who have the privilege of admiring The Associate, cannot tolerate.

I wonder if any of them read it, to be honest - I just can't comprehend why they've all gone in to bat for this guy on this issue.

we hold these privileges of making movies to be self-evident

contenderizer OTFM

Maybe they all wish they were that little girl, privileged to share lukewarm water, champagne, and a sleeping pill with greatness.

Woody Allen, of all people, should know better than to stick his neck out on this particular issue (and I say this as someone who has zero issues with his marriage to Soon-Yi)

it just speaks to these people leading some kind of totally, pathologically blinkered existence

you mean the french?

well, I DO have issues with Allen hooking up with Soon-Yi, but they're not legal.

you mean the french?

No, just the "intellectuals"

Polanski was largely free to lay Swiss roots

He probably enjoyed that.

transcript of polanski's plea is interesting. it includes a passage where he is made to acknowledge that the judge has not decided a sentence for him, it could be as much as 20 years, and that he'd need psych evaluation and probation reports first. which seems to undermine the arguments that the judge "reneged" on a deal for a short sentence.

can an ilx lawyer explain plea bargaining - can you bargain down to a specific sentence unofficially or is it just about copping the lesser charge and the judge still has discretion up to the max sentence?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea8.html

based on my extensive knowledge of sentencing garnered from years of watching law and order, you bargain with the prosecutor--pleading guilty to a lesser charge than the charge that would be brought to trial--in exchange for a specific sentence or sentence range, which the prosecutor then brings to the judge as a recommendation and i think mostly always the judge follows it

^^

Here you'll take a guilty plea on a charge in exchange for dropping others, or in exchange for having the charge reduced somehow. Sentencing remains with the judge entirely. But America does seem to be different.

although, it's not always totally about pleading guilty to a lesser charge. if the charge has a range of, say, 5-25 years, you can plead guilty to the highest charge in the hopes that the judge will take the prosecutor's punishment recommendation into account as opposed to just taking your chance with the judge

Re Ismael: I think it's about the same in the US. Plea bargaining seems to have more to do with the charges levied than with the punishment imposed. Judges usually seem to go with the prosecutor's recs WR2 sentencing, but they aren't bound to. Crux is the "you plead guilty to this and we won't charge you with that" part.

right. so the idea that the judge backed out of an agreement is just a slur on a dead guy who can't answer back? because this passage has polanski and his lawyer testifying that they haven't made any backroom deal over sentencing and the judge makes it clear none of this is binding on him anyway. puts a whole new light on the judge's behaviour and makes polanski's flight even less excusable imo.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea11.html

Apparently no judge is ever legally bound to accept a plea bargain, and has the right to change his mind at any time. Polanski, of course, was *afraid* the judge would change his mind, and fled before the judge ever did so. Which makes Polanski seem all the more cowardly.

The reason this is all happening now, supposedly, is that Polanski and his lawyers shook the hornets nest earlier this year. That sketchy doc had come out, replete with allegations that there was some questionable exchange between the former prosecutor (Wells) and the judge that turned the latter against (or more against) Polanski and therefore tainted the trial. Polanski, con mucho hubris, started lobbying for the case to be dropped in early '09. Of course, the current L.A. prosecution team/D.A. did not take lightly to being lobbied by a fugitive who had plead guilty to a heinous crime, but at the same time offered to reassess the case in good faith if Polanski appeared in court. He even implied Polanski's team had made several strong points. Polanski of course didn't show, and the wheels were set in motion once again.

(For that matter, in a 2003 Vanity Fair piece, the victim, too, requested Polanski appear in court to put this all behind them, which belies all the "respect the victim's wishes" cries noted that she has "forgiven" him.)

News that Wells apparently just recanted his admission in the doc that he met with the judge and convinced him to drop the plea deal pretty much fucks Polanski, since that admission is largely what Polanski's team based its renewed lobbying efforts on. Now Wells claims he just showed the judge pictures of Polanski partying with young women at Oktoberfest, but whether he's lying or not is irrelevant. By discrediting himself, Wells takes himself out of the running to testify at Polanski's bequest that anything legally shady went down behind closed doors.

And now comes news that France and Poland have significantly lessened their "Free Polanski" stance down to near nil.

The idea of Roman Polanski incarcerated is an anathema and a situation that we, who have the privilege of making movies, cannot tolerate.

This passage has received more than enough attention, but too much of it directed at "we, who have the privilege of making movies." The crux is "Roman Polanski incarcerated is an anathema and a situation that we ... cannot tolerate". In totally ignoring the circumstances of his incarceration, it becomes an argument that Polanski's art places him in a special class of people, people who not only receive special treatment, but rightly deserve it. And as it speaks from membership in his class to the rest of the world, it amounts to an elite's passionate defense of their own privileged difference. It's almost shocking to hear it stated so plainly. Like reading that wingnut's call for Obama to be overthrown in a military coup.

― That's not just me saying that, that's the Pentagon. (contenderizer), Thursday, October 1, 2009 6:09 PM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

otm x 1000

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=373m99A_oP0

I still say Polanski's being publicly PUNISHED for having the nerve to make a slanderous film based on a slanderous book implicating ex-UK Prime Minister and soon-to-be EU President Tony Blair in the Iraq_War_(7-7)_conspiracy and CIA_torture debacle. Is it really not that obvious?