Also interesting to note how quickly the "victim" started supporting her "rapist" after receiving a big check in a civil suit case. Makes one wonder how truthful and uncoerced her original testimony was.

Well golly. Have you folks started releasing criminals caught and convicted after they committed their crimes, since your legal system is apparently required to absolve the guilty as long as differences in culture are present?

Can you even convict foreigners?

Better re-examine Simon Wiesenthal's work. Some of those poor war criminals might not be guilty any longer since the times have changed so drastically.

Parents, pull your heads out of your arses and quit commenting, your opinions mean dick, and your views would be laughable were this not a very serious crime that does indeed deserve harsh punishment. To little to late, not to mention frivilous, ludicrous, ridiculous, and wildly straight to late after the fact. I seriously hope this DA gets canned for their foolhardy approach to this case.

Did you not even read the article, or any others that state the facts of the case? You say he was never found guilty, and that is false. He was _convicted_ of unlawful sex with a minor. (Sadly, he was not convicted of all charges against him, but he _was_ found guilty, and did not fully comply with sentencing for the crime he admitted and was convicted of.)

Some of the apologists (Amy @ 39, for example) may think that 7th grade girls are mature and sophisticated, but go spend time with real 7th graders.

They're not sophisticated, no matter how much they think they are. They're not supposed to take or be given drugs. In fact, it's more dangerous for teens than for adults, because teens are still physically and mentally developing. They're too physically immature to take sexual penetration from an adult man in ANY orifice.

It wouldn't even have mattered if she didn't say no or seemed to say yes. No decent man could spend time with a 7th grade girl and believe he had any right to do what Polanski did.

Maybe because they're the ultimate in douchebags, practicing the ultimate in douchebaggery?

Yes, that's it!

That isn't my post up there.

It does not matter WHAT the age of consent was in 1973, or now. Nor does it matter what Polanski THOUGHT was the age of consent.

She did NOT consent.

Got it?

Fact: Polanski PLED guilty; there was no more trial to be had, there is no more trial to be had. Polanski fled sentencing, not trial.

Fact: Judges can agree or not agree to plea deals, and are under no obligation to uphold any deal the DA strikes. The DA can simply recommend a course of sentencing. Polanski was clearly informed of this at trial, and asked at the time he personally entered his plea in court, if he understood that the judge did not have to honor any plea Polanski may have entered into with the DA, and that Polanski would not receive a final sentence until after the results of what could be a 90-day (and turned out to be 42-day) evaluation of him. Polanski testified in court that he understood this.

Then he went to France before sentencing and never came back.

I don't care if the fleeing convicted criminal fled to France to make movies for 30 years or fled to Mexico or Canada for 30 days to avoid sentencing, he still is still a convicted criminal who has not served the sentence he is due to serve by law (and which, by law, is limited to no more than 5 years in California, at an absolute maximum). The fleeing itself is a crime.

If France chose not to honor an outstanding warrant and extradition order, that is France's issue. The Swiss chose to honor it. That's out of everyone's else's hands, governmental or otherwise; if the Swiss extradite him to the US, that is still solely between the Swiss and the US.

Polanski can appeal sentencing (and could have done so at the time) and need not have been in jail while doing so. The sticky issue now is that even if he appeals sentencing regarding the statutory rape conviction, he now also has to contend with having fled sentencing, itself a crime. He brought that one on himself.

The man is no longer on trial for rape, regardless of anyone's opinion on that. But, as a citizen of this country (and Polanski pled guilty to a federal offense), I am hugely concerned with seeing that a convicted criminal does not have the option to decide whether or not he feels like going through with his sentence. Besides, Polanski DOES have the option of pulling out of his plea agreement and taking his chances with a trial. Like O.J. Simpson and Phil Spector; it could go either way. The man knows his options; he just chose the one that would guarantee him his freedom; but having pled guilty to a crime, he knew he was agreeing to give up his freedom anywhere from 42 days to 5 years. It is not his decision, however, to figure out how long that will be. No man is above the law.

Granted. But if we’re going to talk about the fuck-up-edness of the U.S. legal system, surely we can find a better martyr than a famous rich guy with the best lawyers in the world who drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, struck a plea deal in order to get off with the lesser charge of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” (or statutory rape), and then fled the country when it looked like the plea deal may not be honored? I’m all for Polanski being tried legally and fairly. Over the years, Polanski has repeatedly attempted to appeal the case—a really cool feature of the American legal process he purposefully evaded—but he refuses to appear in court.

Excuse me while I play the world’s tiniest piano, but if the American legal system is broken, the fix is not for rapists to just choose their own adventure (in this case, France).'

While much of this is true, ther is one thing you probably don't know: the standard of review for appeals cases. that standard is a"clearly erroneous abuse of discretion" by the judge. Judges have wide discretion and proving it clearly erroneous is difficult. This discretion is why the plea was not going to be honored. There is substantial indication that the judge loved the spotlight that this case out on his courtroom, and that that is the reason he was going to honor the plea deal. however in order to prove that not honoring was the deal is an "abuse of discretion" Polsnski would have prove no reasonable judge under the circumstances could find enough evidence for the higher charge. That means if any theory presented by the facts could satisfy the higher charge, the ruling stands, true or not.
Polanski should go to jail, his defense is ludicrous, and true judges can set aside pleas for good cause, but when that cause is likely muddied by an attempt at stardom by a judge, I just don't think that's just. The process must meet the result. If all we cared about were results then we'd be in trouble.
Polanski's crimes likely meet the higher standard. He should be extradited, but to stand trial, not to be put away on the charges he was likely disingenuously convicted of.
If you want to see justice, I think this is the only way, and I think and hope he will be convicted again.

Very nice, implying that the victim has been "paid off". Not only morally egregious of you but also untrue as Polanski apparently never got around to paying her the settlement.

EXACTLY.

Implying that this was a simple instance of a moral judge not accepting a terrible plea bargain is intellectually dishonest. If you want to see him strung up, that's fine. I wish he would never get out of jail myself, but more than that, I support a fair legal system. To wit:

The problem wasn't that the judge declined the plea. It's that there where ex parte communications that allowed the defendant to be deliberately mislead about the state of his trial. This is illegal. This is not a "fair trial."

Get pissed at the original prosecution, or at the Judge, or, best of all, at Polanski himself. But don't act like every single person who thinks the situation is a little more complicated than some blogospheric rabble-rousing is a pie-eyed Hollywood sycophant; I've never even seen a Roman Polanski movie.

Unless I'm mistaken, you seem to be implying that the fact that a clearly biased judicial system entirely defrauded the defendant shouldn't matter simply because the defendant is clearly guilty of a terrible crime.

"Excuse me while I play the world’s tiniest piano, but if the American legal system is broken, the fix is not for rapists to just choose their own adventure (in this case, France)."

Unfortunately for you, Amanada, snark isn't exactly the same as a fair judicial process. Justice is only worthwhile when it's inconvenient; to argue that simply because somebody commits a heinous crime renders them worthless under the law is to subvert the entire foundation of our judicial system.

He shouldn't have run, tiny Pianists or no, but to claim that the defense that the legal system failed him is invalid because "he's a child rapist!" is just obtuse.

Or was it three years? Well whatever.

You don't get to have it both ways. Tate's murder is moot. He's remarried and moved on,you could say. The Manson family didn't abscond and are paying the price behind bars. Polanski hasn't faced the music because of his cowardly ways. Just like any other child rapist, they're all cowards.

In my opinion,those defending Polanski must be child-rapists themselves. Woody Allen on that list is a given. Harrison Ford is not surprising either-considering the woman he's involved with is built like a 10 year old girl. Boycott their work or watch their work thru pirated copies. After all,I'm sure Whoopi Goldberg would agree,pirating isn't exactly Theft Theft.

Polanski must do time for all and any additional charges. If he dies behind bars,so be it.

If Polanksi was afraid the judge was going to sentence him to more than the 42 days he expected, he had the right to withdraw his plea of guilty and go to trial on the original charges of rape and sodomy. I guess he didn't want to do that because his only defense to those charges would have been consent (since Angelica Huston was prepared to testify that he did in fact have sex with the girl he couldn't claim that the whole thing was made up) and that would have still left him admitting statutory rape, which would have left him worse off than with the plea bargain.

Gee, life's a bitch, isn't it?

You don't know jack about the plea bargain system, apparently.

See, a judge is never EVER a party to a plea bargain.

The judge is not a party to the bargain, but either approves or disapproves, and in any case, retains absolute discretion on sentencing. The judge does not "reneg" -- rather, (s)he gets the final word.

Defendants across America, every single day, hear their judge say "NO WAY" to a bargain their attorney struck with the prosecutors. Its one way that we make sure that people with means and people without each get a fair shake. If the judge sees a wealthy individual getting a deal that does not fit the charges, he can say "no mas."

When that happens, the defendant has a simple remedy: He didn't get the deal he wanted, so he is free to withdraw his plea and either go back to negotiations or push for a trial.

Polanski had a sweetheart deal that would result in no jail time. He got word the judge wasn't going to buy it, and about that time, knew for a fact that if he went to trial, Anjelica Houston would be testifying. (She was dating Jack Nicholson and showed up while Roman was f***ng this young girl, and observed the girl leaving the room in tears).

So pull your star-fu**er celebrity naval gazing head out of your colon and learn a little bit about the system before you spout off.

The only thing confusing is your thought process. Polanski found out that the sweetheart deal he was offered wasn't being accepted and he decided to run. Just because 30 years have gone by doesn't mean we should just drop things. Thinking like yours is a major reason people believe the law doesn't apply to them because they're in a "special situation" or they are a "special person". One of the beautiful things about living in the United States is the belief that no man or woman is above the law.