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

Of course, yes. Carry on...

well he pleaded guilty but i thought the judge had not accepted it yet since he ran away before he could be sentenced

i mean he was going to. wait maybe i'm wrong

It matters because laws are meant to act indiscriminately, in fact are expressly designed to do so, and yeah the truth and life are often messy grey areas (though this case isn't, particularly). Despite this any law bound society has to enforce its laws and not simply say "eh we can let this one slide, it's a bit weird."

Yeah it is. PLEASE SOME AMERICAN TELL ME WHY IT FUCKING MATTERS

― Niles Caulder, Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:48 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I'm sorry you're so disappointed, Chief.

yeah nm xpost to myself

if there's enough other evidence against an accused, you don't need the victim to testify at all - murder cases would be a bit hard to prosecute otherwise

^^^ this is why it's hard for voodoo forensics specialists

is there much evidence other than her testimony though?

how about that fact that he PLEADED GUILTY

i mean evidence they can use at trial. which i don't think they'll do. i'm not disputing that he's guilty

this point has probably been made here somewhere, but all this talk about how he did something "30 years ago" misses a big point: he has been committing a crime every single day since he fled the country. his crime is still in commission. and not just against something abstract like the justice system, but against the victim too. her forgiveness and calls for clemency are all to her credit. but at the same time, by becoming a fugitive, polanski has kept this thing alive and unresolved in her life too, so that filmmakers 30 years later are still coming to interview her and she has to listen to whoopi goldberg et al parse the legal and anatomical details of the whole thing, even now. what kind of chance for closure does that give her? and all of that is solely because of polanski's selfishness.

but he's been convicted already so they won't. it was a response to ismael klata.

Flying squid attack, do you really think some official censure equates w closure? Some things just don't get closed. In all honesty I'd be amazed if she wasn't more or less over this anyway except OH SHIT SHE IS

There was talk that the plea could be set aside and a retrial ordered, though.

In which case, could they introduce the victim's grand jury testimony and police statements, since she's uncooperative now?
Given the existence of those, and no new denial on her part that the acts were committed, can she be compelled to testify? Would any DA actually do so?

Why do I suspect Niles is rapidly heading for 51...

i really am enjoying how much this appears to bother him

yeah

It appears to, it doesn't really

Why do countries not recognize extradition pleas?

imo they should just forget about the rape and charge him for fleeing, the victim wouldn't have to do anything. if there was a trial for the rape and she refused to testify there's not much they could do.

I assume that's what they planned to do.

It appears to, it doesn't really

― Niles Caulder, Tuesday, September 29, 2009 4:15 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

u been using caps dude, come on

In which case, could they introduce the victim's grand jury testimony and police statements, since she's uncooperative now?

Given the existence of those, and no new denial on her part that the acts were committed, can she be compelled to testify? Would any DA actually do so?

Yes, yes and yes.

no, he has to be able to cross-examine those statements

i don't get the sense that it would take much for her to testify, particularly if it means closing the case once and for all.

why are people talking about evidence for a rape trial, that part is done, he pleaded guilty to it.

Caps're funny, sorry. I am interested in all this, just not as much as my caps might've led you to suspect

right, actually. that part's done with, they were just about to sentence him when he fled. niles really is worked up about this d-bag child rapist fugitive.

There was talk that the plea could be set aside and a retrial ordered, though.

i don't know if that's possible or true but it was posed xpost

The US-France treaty provides that they need not extradite their own citizens to one another. One of the links above says that Polanski is French, I presume that's why he's been out-of-reach all these years.

he's french!?

charge them both with conspiracy

sounds far fetched, especially considering he'd be up for [whatever the lawyery term is for fleeing the country] on top of it, but what do i know

xp re: a retrial

i agree

I can't remember which link, but I think it said he was born in France (which isn't what I'd understood at all)

it has taken people arguing against the capture of a fugitive child rapist for me & bill magill to agree, but we do indeed seem to agree - a monumental day imo

oh haha. you're right! i'd assumed france was only involved because he lived there. silly me

whatever the courts decide, I still say not a single vote for Cul-de-Sac in that poll up there is ridic

it has taken people arguing against the capture of a fugitive child rapist for me & bill magill to agree, but we do indeed seem to agree - a monumental day imo

― rather shipped (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, September 29, 2009 4:25 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

a landmark occasion

First they came for the anal underage rapist fugitives and I said nothing...

he's french!?

So they could try him, find him guilty, then have him immediately deported? That would teach the bastard.

Why do I suspect Niles is rapidly heading for 51...

Question. If I ban 51 people, do I get banned myself or do I have to cast the 51st vote against myself for it to count?

Woody Allen lolz. I wonder if his daughter/wife signed.

"You can't watch films knowing Roman Polanski is sitting in a cell 5km away"

What if he was 6km away?

"judicial lynching"

LOL

Oh fuck the law, it's not meant to be a value in itself

― Niles Caulder, Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:14 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

no, youre right; its not meant to be a value in itself; theoretically its paired with "justice": the law applies (like ryan said about) equally and unequivocally to everyone, while the application of "justice" is specific and individual. the whole point of "law"; the whole, you know, foundation of its existence, is that you dont get to decide when it applies and when it doesnt, and "laws" dont care about how you were in the holocaust and your wife was murdered and you make great movies and your victim just wants to drop it.

people who are complaining about polanskis arrest seem to me to be confusing law with justice. polanski is getting arrested because he broke the law; the law is being applied to polanski in the same way it would/should apply to anyone, regardless of circumstance. now the case will be brought before a judge, at which point "justice" enters the equation. i imagine you would argue that "justice" will involve dismissal of the charges or some kind of soft censure; other would probably argue that "justice" involves a harsher punishment. but that's the whole point of "justice": its particular and distinct and requires that the holocaust and your murdered wife and your great movies and your victims desire to move on be part of the discussion.

to argue that the law shouldnt be carried out in this instance is to argue imo against the way law and justice work in a liberal society like ours--and maybe thats a conversation you want to have?

I misread that as "its particular and distinct and requires that the holocaust murdered your wife"

thats "german law"

"Yeah but that doesn't count because it was old school paedoing, before it got such a bad name"

http://tmwl.project76.tv/Images/NBYkXT_PeepShow4Blue.jpg