|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 6:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
| The criminal wasnt being sent to the US for a trial, he was already convicted and sentenced. He was going to be returned to serve the sentence. |
He was never formally sentenced. |
He was going to possibly be sentenced, so he fled. He was under the impression previously that he wasn't going to be sentenced when he found that was not going to be true, he fled.
He committed a crime. He fled. The US Government had a right to pursue a case against him. Justice is not about to him. The crime was up to him.
The victim wants the case dropped, but she didn't consent to what happened to her and could not have. The Swiss should have technically handed him over. Then, the US should have decided what to do with him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Thanks for the apology, but I feel that we have a genuine difference of opinion here. He served the time he was supposed to under the agreement that the judge was going to renege on. |
What reneging was the judge going to engage in? The only finalized agreement was that Polanski would plead guilty to a lesser charge. The final sentence is never included in a formal, signed plea agreement.
| Quote: |
| If you knew you were going to be subjected to an injustice, would you stick around? |
I see no injustice; I only see a defendant who ran when he discovered his punishment was going to be worse than he originally thought. |
If you are unaware of the misconduct of the media-obsessed judge in the case, I suggest you read up on it.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| It is just like the current case of the Daegu teacher who fled Korea. Should he have stuck around, too? |
The Daegu teacher did not plea guilty (was he even charged before he fled?). If he was charged and was certain of his innocence, then no, he should not have stuck around. Polanski was fully aware of his guilt. The two flights deserve no comparison. |
It was not an exact comparison. Maybe you don't think it was an injustice, but the defendant did. So, the question in both cases remains, if you as a defendant, believe there is a strong likelihood of injustice, would you stick around?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| What private opinions are you talking about? All the figures in a public prosecution are just that - public. Their stances - not "opinions" - do matter. |
I may be wrong here (I'm being genuine in my uncertainty), but I was under the impression that none of these dissenting prosecutors and judges have current jurisdiction over the case. |
Since I was originally speaking in the context of the plea agreement 31 years ago, I was obviously not talking about their current opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
retorsion
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can't believe people actually stand up for Polanski.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| retorsion wrote: |
I can't believe people actually stand up for Polanski.
|
I don't. I can only understand that he was given the wrong impression by the judicial system, and then he fled, and the victim wants to let it go.
However, he committed a felony. He should face a trial. The US system has no place for simply dropping those charges because the victim wants that. It's not the American way. If she were say 16, and consented, I might somewhat understand and he was very tempted, but he forced herself on her. He drugged her. He should be in jail over it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| He drugged her. He should be in jail over it. |
Absolutely.
I'm proud of the US for being the only country willing to actually pursue and enforce the letter of the law. When you uphold the law as inviolable and applicable to all equally, you begin to create a secure society.
Man I wish Korea would do that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| retorsion wrote: |
I can't believe people actually stand up for Polanski.
|
Oh, yeah, especially the victim! 
| Adventurer wrote: |
| The US system has no place for simply dropping those charges because the victim wants that. It's not the American way. |
That is not true. Many courts even require Victim Impact Statements before sentencing.
You can bet if the victim wanted the perpetrator punished, they'd be listening to her!
| Junior wrote: |
| I'm proud of the US for being the only country willing to actually pursue and enforce the letter of the law. When you uphold the law as inviolable and applicable to all equally, you begin to create a secure society. |
This case is not about justice, it is about vengeance. It isn't about serving the interests of the victim who has expressed her desire that the authorities drop the case, but they've persistently ridden roughshod over her wishes. It's not about protecting kids. Has anyone suggested that this man, now in his seventies, is out there "grooming" young girls for purposes of sexual depredation? No. This is about dredging up a case over 30 years old because the accused is famous and the prosecutors would just love the press coverage and professional advancement that would come from convicting him.
Just as in the Michael Jackson case, it's also about the symbolic statement associated with bringing down a famous person. The goal is to set the moral tone for society by making an example of someone prominent. This helps to maintain the culture of repression.
| Quote: |
| Man I wish Korea would do that. |
Korea is already emulating the US way too much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is not about vengeance. Even if the victim doesn't want him punished, he was an adult, and it doesn't matter if he was in his 70s anymore than a former Nazi being brought to trial. Polanski ran from the law. You are not supposed to run from the US to escape trial. He should stand trial. It's irrelevant whether he would act that way now or not. He committed a crime. It's like saying someone who returned the money from a bank and has been caught all these decades should be let go.
Why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
^
| ontheway wrote: |
The judge is guilty of judicial misconduct.
The victim wants the case dropped.
The US system is out of control. This man should be left alone. |
I suggest everybody download and watch Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the 2008 documentary about the case.
Our goal in Wanted and Desired was not to absolve Polanski or make excuses for his behavior. Instead, we wanted to clarify what happened after the 43 year old director took 13 year old Samantha Geimer to Jack Nicholson�s Hollywood home. What did Ms Geimer�s lawyer mean when he said that the day Roman Polanski fled was �a shameful day� for the American judicial system ? It didn�t make sense.
After being arrested on six counts including rape, sodomy and furnishing drugs to a minor, Polanski had the misfortune to come before Laurence J. Rittenband, one of Los Angeles� most powerful judges. Judge Rittenband � a man so press hungry that he kept a cuttings book inside his bailiff�s desk � was as imperious and impulsive as Polanski himself.
He was reportedly good friends with LA lawyer Sidney Korshak, the Chicago Mafia�s West Coast fixer. At the time of Polanski�s trial, the 71 year old Rittenband also had two long-term girlfriends on the go...The one who did �the other stuff� � Marlene Roden � was barely 20 years old when she met the Judge. Our film doesn�t delve into psycho-biography, but it�s tempting to speculate whether Rittenband saw something of himself in Polanski.
At first, the star-struck Rittenband was minded to go easy on the French-born director. Ms Geimer�s lawyer Larry Silver proposed a plea bargain whereby Polanski would plead guilty to a reduced charge of unlawful sexual intercourse. But as the media started to criticise him, Rittenband tore up the legal rule book.
Our most astonishing discovery was that at a key moment, Rittenband took Polanski�s attorney Douglas Dalton and the Assistant D.A. Roger Gunson into chambers and told them how he wanted them to argue their case in court � a clear violation of court procedure. Rittenband also openly discussed the case with journalists. One reporter, Richard Brenneman, told us how he was buttonholed by Rittenband during a particularly tricky stage of the proceedings : �Dick � tell me. What the hell should I do with Polanski ?� One of Polanski�s friends recalled how his father, a prominent Hollywood producer, overheard the judge boasting at his LA Country Club about how he would put �that little blank blank Polanski away for the rest of his life.�
...
The back stage machinations even led Assistant D.A. Roger Gunson to admit on camera that he was not surprised Polanski fled �under those circumstances.�
Judge Rittenband died in 1993, but the effects of his capricious mishandling of the Polanski case still reverberate today. When our film was shown on HBO in June 2008, the LA Superior Court objected to the film�s you-couldn�t-make-it-up payoff : the revelation that negotiations to bring Polanski back in 1997 had fallen apart because the new trial judge � Judge Larry Paul Fidler � had insisted that the hearings be televised. Judge Fidler is currently presiding over the Phil Spector trial, where TV coverage has become a contentious issue. We had accidentally poked a hornet�s nest.
As HBO geared up for the TV premiere, the Court accused us of �fabrication� � a charge which so enraged the original trial attorneys Douglas Dalton and Roger Gunson that they issued a joint statement supporting the film�s conclusions. The irony of both defence and prosecution lawyers lining up 30 years later to challenge another judge�s high handed antics wasn�t lost on either Dalton or Gunson. � (The) false and reprehensible statement by the Los Angeles Superior Court continues their inappropriate handling of the Polanski case� they said. After a great deal of back and forth, the spirit of the film�s end caption was maintained while accommodating the Court�s different recollection of events. It was a reminder � in case we ever needed one � that Case Number A334139 remains a live issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
Just as in the Michael Jackson case, it's also about the symbolic statement associated with bringing down a famous person. The goal is to set the moral tone for society by making an example of someone prominent. This helps to maintain the culture of repression. |
You're right, they could have set the moral tone by making it clear that no matter how far a convicted rapist goes, or how long he eludes capture, he will be punished for his crime. It MIGHT even maintain the culture of repressing child molesters.
Would it be all that bad if a convicted rapist was punished? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not sure how exactly the case was handled, but we know Polanski did a horrible thing, and he fled. He should be sent back to the US to face trial.
If he wasn't guilty, he shouldn't have run and faced up to the evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
You're right, they could have set the moral tone by making it clear that no matter how far a convicted rapist goes, or how long he eludes capture, he will be punished for his crime. It MIGHT even maintain the culture of repressing child molesters.
Would it be all that bad if a convicted rapist was punished? |
He was punished. He served time in a secure evaluation facility and has been unable to freely travel for 30 years.
| Adventurer wrote: |
I am not sure how exactly the case was handled, but we know Polanski did a horrible thing, and he fled. He should be sent back to the US to face trial.
If he wasn't guilty, he shouldn't have run and faced up to the evidence. |
Well then, why don't you familiarize yourself with it before pontificating upon it? Why should he face trial? He pled guilty! 
Why are you disregarding the judicial misconduct in this case?
Edited for punctuation
Last edited by bacasper on Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:39 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
most likely though, I think they would not have gone after him like that if he wasn't famous.
They still failed though, underlying the gaping failure of our justice system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
You're right, they could have set the moral tone by making it clear that no matter how far a convicted rapist goes, or how long he eludes capture, he will be punished for his crime. It MIGHT even maintain the culture of repressing child molesters.
Would it be all that bad if a convicted rapist was punished? |
He was punished. He served time in a secure evaluation facility and has been unable to freely travel for 30 years.
| Adventurer wrote: |
I am not sure how exactly the case was handled, but we know Polanski did a horrible thing, and he fled. He should be sent back to the US to face trial.
If he wasn't guilty, he shouldn't have run and faced up to the evidence. |
Well then, why don't you familiarize yourself with it before pontificating upon it? Why should he face trial? He pled guilty!
Why are you disregarding the judicial misconduct in this case?
Edited for punctuation |
I read about the case, actually, and I still think he should have face trial. The plea bargain was a bad idea. I think they were going easy on him because he was a celebrity. He committed a horrible crime, and he should have served the time. He still fled regardless if the justice system changed its mind about the plea deal. He committed a crime.
He should have done the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve_Rogers2008
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
maybe we can kill two birds with one stone and hae him direct the next Lyndsay Lohan movie... the pillowtalk would be enough to ensure they both committed suicide...
the tabloids would fight over who comited the murder-suicide aspect of the case, but deep down, we'd all know it was a mutual decision...
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
I read about the case, actually, and I still think he should have face trial. The plea bargain was a bad idea.
I think they were going easy on him because he was a celebrity. He committed a horrible crime, and he should have served the time. He still fled regardless if the justice system changed its mind about the plea deal.
He committed a crime.
He should have done the time. |
Prosecutors offer plea bargains in 90%+ of cases. Why should this one have been different? Or are you criticizing the entire American jurisprudence system for even offering plea bargains? I might add that in all those other cases, the defendant committed the crime and should have done the time, too.
I believe they have continued to pursue him all these long years because he was a celebrity. And he served the time the judge ordered.
The only thing he did wrong was to flee, for which he should be sentenced for failure to appear added on to the original plea bargain, if anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
