The only reason why one would need to take into account the victim is if there was a retrial (after all, she would have to testify, which she might not want to do). Since he plead guilty, however, this is a non-issue.
should Romen Polanski be extradition back to the usa?
- Thread starter drychlick
- Start date
Yeah, you start taking the victim's wishes into account, then all you'll end up with is victims being paid off so the perp can walk free. It's bad enough we already have cases of victim intimidation. Putting it into law that a victim can arbitrarily withdraw their charges at any time is nonsense. Those who are both wealthy and guilty will walk away.
Who is the OP? They keep starting threads and then never returning.
I don't know, but I have a hard time understanding them most of the time.
The polls are sometimes hard to understand, yes.
Yes.
Nuff said.
S.
Nuff said.
S.
There was or is (not sure) a petition from famous directors and actors to not extradict Polanski.
http://www.sacd.fr/Le-cinema-soutient-Roman-Polanski-Petition-for-Roman-Polanski.1340.0.html
signing parties :
Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar, Jean-Jacques Annaud, Fanny Ardant, Asia Argento, Olivier Assayas, Monica Bellucci, Patrice Chéreau, Luc et Jean-Pierre Dardenne, Jonathan Demme, Costa Gavras, Terry Gilliam, Wong Kar Waï, Jan Kounen, Emir Kusturica, John Landis, David Lynch, Tonie Marshall, Radu Mihaileanu, Jeanne Moreau, Yasmina Reza, Barbet Schroeder, Ettore Scola, Martin Scorsese, Tilda Swinton, Giuseppe Tornatore, Wim Wenders...
This is just bizarre.
I might have to revaluate these people....
http://www.sacd.fr/Le-cinema-soutient-Roman-Polanski-Petition-for-Roman-Polanski.1340.0.html
signing parties :
Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar, Jean-Jacques Annaud, Fanny Ardant, Asia Argento, Olivier Assayas, Monica Bellucci, Patrice Chéreau, Luc et Jean-Pierre Dardenne, Jonathan Demme, Costa Gavras, Terry Gilliam, Wong Kar Waï, Jan Kounen, Emir Kusturica, John Landis, David Lynch, Tonie Marshall, Radu Mihaileanu, Jeanne Moreau, Yasmina Reza, Barbet Schroeder, Ettore Scola, Martin Scorsese, Tilda Swinton, Giuseppe Tornatore, Wim Wenders...
This is just bizarre.
I might have to revaluate these people....
Eh, if I boycotted every celebrity I thought had a screw loose or made questionable decisions, I'd never see any movies or TV! I can't speak to the motivations of the people who signed the petition, but it's probably just a matter of sticking up for a friend, to them. Misguided or stupid as it may be.
Don't you have victim's impact statement in the USA? Isn't the victim's opinion often listen to when it comes to matters of parole? A victim's wishes shouldn't come into account during the trial but I think later they can especially if the victim genuinely forgives the person with pressure being applied.
Woody Allen was having sex with his adopted daughter, he later married his daughter Soon-Yi, he was linked to various sex scandals and lost his other kids partially due to abuse charges
Martin Scorsese is into all this tantric, tibetan, swinger BS he probably thinks having sex with such a young girl is spirituality or some BS.
Victor Salva, creator of Jeepers Creepers, molested a pre-teen boy, he's a damn convict, asking this guys opinion on the matter is like asking "Al" Capone for his opinion on theft and bank robberies
and David Lynch is kinda "out there" not really connect to the real world
I did some cursory internet sleuthing in search of an answer to this question, and this is what I found:
In some states, the victim's impact statement can be weighed during the sentencing phase, not during parole hearings; in other states the VIS is inadmissable. Even in states where a VIS can affect sentencing, weight given to it by a judge cannot conflict with mandatory sentencing guidelines or other predetermined sentencing. The VIS's primary purpose is to give voice and emotional closure to the victim; the secondary purpose, where admissible, is to determine whether the victim's pain and suffering warrants *further* (not less) penalty (usually monentary judgment to cover quantifiable loss) than the law mandates, the prosecution recommends, or in Polanski's case, what's worked out in a plea bargain.
Regardless, the sentencing phase in the Polanski case, and the opportunity for a VIS, had such a thing existed at the time, passed - 30 years ago. (Ironically, the murder of Polanski's wife Sharon Tate in 1969 was the initial catalyst for the creation of the VIS, however the first laws allowing VIS didn't come to pass until 1982, years after the Polanski sex crime). Just as people cannot be punished retroactively for conduct that was not deemed criminal at the time the conduct occurred, the victim cannot retroactively give a statement worth any weight now. The victim's wishes at this late date are irrelevant, and even they weren't, her desire for leniency would not exempt Polanski from extradition proceedings or serving time.
However it isn't neccessarily just up to the USA to take the victim's wishes into account but the Swiss legal system could as well. If the victim states that she had forgiven him maybe the Swiss might end up deciding against extradiction.
And even if he is extradited than the woman could say she forgives him at his first parole hearing so her wishes are not entirely irrelevant.
edited to add - it seems that parole will not be an issue.
As I read that it seems that if he is extradited Polanski will only have to serve 48 days in prison.
And even if he is extradited than the woman could say she forgives him at his first parole hearing so her wishes are not entirely irrelevant.
edited to add - it seems that parole will not be an issue.
As I read that it seems that if he is extradited Polanski will only have to serve 48 days in prison.
No, he should not be. For three reasons:
1. It was a long-ass time ago.
2. The victim wants it dropped.
3. It would be illegal for France to extradite him.
He can never return to the United States. Let banishment be enough and move on. Plenty of present-day rapists and violent criminals of all sorts to worry about.
1. It was a long-ass time ago.
2. The victim wants it dropped.
3. It would be illegal for France to extradite him.
He can never return to the United States. Let banishment be enough and move on. Plenty of present-day rapists and violent criminals of all sorts to worry about.
What power the Swiss have depends on the details of the extradition agreement between them and the USA. I don't have those details, someone else will have to provide that. I do know that Switzerland extradites US criminals and vice versa. The ball might be in the US court on this one.
If he is extradited, the victim can say whatever she wants at his parole hearing, assuming she's even notified of a hearing. Its unlikely and possibly unconstitutional, if California is one of the states where a victim's emotional imput is inadmissible, to impact the decision in the hearing. In matters like parole hearings, a judge in the US will weigh Polanski's complete lack of remorse and continuing bad behavior against him as part of his assessement of what kind of societal menace Polanski presents: afterall, Polanski fled after post-rape photos of him partying with other underage girls made it to the DA's office during the sentencing phase and caused the judge to reconsider his plea agreement with the defendant. The victim's forgiveness of Polanski will not protect other people from him, and further excuses him from any sort of responsibility for his very serious and damaging conduct.
Well, he fucked a 13 year-old then didn't keep his end of the bargain he pleaded, and became a fugitive. So that'd be a yes.
Sorry for the double post but I saw you added to your original post.
He fled the country and that's another criminal offense with its own sentence. If he has to serve time, he will likely serve 3 years for fleeing in addition to the 48 days left on his original sentence. I don't know if the now-deceased judge's plan to drop his plea bargain and make him serve a full sentence would still apply.
from what I gather the most the judge could have sentence him to was to spend the remainder of the 90 days in prison.
I don't think the prosecution at the time appealled the laxity of his sentence. That the judge gave him such a light sentence is appalling and I do not understand why such a plea bargain was allowed. He also should not have been released at all because they must have known he had the ability to easily flee.
Also the sentence for fleeing might have to reflect what sentences could have been given at the time he fled. I am not sure if sentences for fleeing back in the 1970s were heavier or lighter than they are today.
Agreed. It appalls me as well. However, and I hate to say it, the massive clusterfuck that has been the Polanski saga hardly surprises me. The same court system that caused this Polansky fiasco is also responsible for my assault & battery case, and I don't want to get into the complete incompetence and breakdown of this system, but suffice to say I'm disappointed in this whole story, but surprised by it, absolutely not.
Similar threads
