~Laura ~ The Women's Forum Soap Scene ~ TVZone ~ ShowBiz
Polanski needs to be returned to justice to face the consequences of his actions. He RAPED a thirteen year old girl. She may want it left alone but at the time she was a victim of a horrible crime against her.
Celebrities are always very smug when they are charged with a crime and feel that their fame is their ticket to freedom. They need to be held accountable as any other person charged with a crime. If they are found not guilty, then that is the decision of the jury or judge. If they are guilty, they should serve the sentence.
Polanski would be sentenced to much more time if he committed the rape recently. And he'd be listed as a sex-offender for life, if he ever got out. He has had a great life all these years in France. To suggest that he never pay for his crimes is repugnant.
As for the victim's wishes: (1) his crimes were against society, not just the girl, (2) the victim did want justice, but is wanting to put this behind her, (3) he is the one who has continually re-victimized her by avoiding justice for 30 years, (4) she does not have to appear in court now, as the only considerations will be his sentence and his flight to avoid prosecution.
Of course, the total picture of a defendant's life should be brought up during sentencing, as it is with most every defendant. But the privilege that some have enjoyed should maybe be looked at as reason for not committing crimes, just as a difficult life may help to explain why the crimes were committed.
Polanski's previous family losses, celebrity, and "brilliant accomplishments" were taken into consideration for his plea bargain, and would have been by the judge. That wasn't good enough for Polanski. He considered himself above the law, as many celebrities do. And now other celebrities are saying he is too good to be held to account.
Virtually no one who has avoided justice is excused from prosecution (for even less serious crimes). And millions who have served their time are never really forgiven by society or given an equal opportunity to rebuild their lives.
Prosecuting Polanski will not stop the hunt for Bin Laden -- assuming we are still looking for him.
Laura says with compassion: ". . . this is about the victim! If she wants peace, give her peace."
Problem is, this is not about the victim--it's about the violation of the law. Once a crime is reported, it's out of the victim's hands. Prosecution is not abandoned just because the victim doesn't want to participate in a trial. Witnesses--including the victim--can be subpoenaed by the prosecution, treated as a hostile witness, and prosecuted if they lie under oath.
It's fine to have compassion for the injured party in a crime, but the system is not about getting justice for one victim, it's about getting justice for our whole society. That's why criminal cases are the state vs. the accused, not the victim vs. the accused.
It may be the victim truly doesn't want to relive the ordeal. However, the picture I saw online of her smiling at a screening of the documentary favorable to the accused might lead one to question whether a trial would really be such an ordeal. Moreover, I've read that she and her family got a undisclosed monetary settlement from an earlier civil suit against Polanski, which sounds similar to what happened with Michael Jackson in connection with some of the boys who slept over at Neverland. Were the settlements necessary compensation to treat the physical and psychological trauma to the victims, or was someone being bought off?
This case should go to trial and Polanski should ether be convicted or freed based on the evidence. The odds would be greatly in his favor, of course, in California where so many jurys appear to be star-struck.
Wasawiz said: "Since he has admitted guilt in a deal, the Government should be required to uphold their end of the deal."
But Polanski didn't admit anything in court or under oath. He simply agreed to plead guilty if the charge was reduced. But such an agreement is not binding until Polanski actually enters the plea in open session of the court before a judge. Moreover, it is up to the judge whether or not to accept the plea based on a deal between the accused and the prosecution. The judge has the last say.
In real life, when they enter court on a plea bargain agreement, the prosecutor can decide at the last moment not to accept the plea if he feels the accused is not taking responsibility for the crime; the accused can decide at the last moment to withdraw his plea if for instance a witness has died or he decides for some other reason he'd be better off with a jury trial; moreover, the judge can refuse to accept the agreement if he feels the deal is either too easy or too harsh on the accused, or for other reasons. Usually, the judge goes along with whatever the prosecuton recommends, but he doesn't have to. From what I've read, Polanski jumped bail because he anticipated that the judge was not going to accept the plea bargain worked out with the prosecution that would have incarcerated him for a very short period for statutory rape. Apparently he believed the judge was going to refuse to let him off with so little time in jail. At any rate, the judge has died, the old prosecutor is gone, new prosecutors are in office, and the agreement is no longer binding on them, although they can make a similar offer if they want to. Meanwhile, Polanski is subject to other criminal charges for jumping bail and flight to avoid prosecution.
The general subject even has been addressed in TV dramas. In one episode of Law and Order, the prosecution had to make a sweetheart deal with a mass murderer in exchange for him identifying his victims and revealing where he had disposed of their bodies. They go in court before a judge, and the accused has to allocate to his crimes. The prosecution shrewdly gets the smug killer to go into detail about his crimes. The gory details horrify the judge who then refuses to accept the plea. Which means the prosecution can now legally bring him to trial and use his confession against him, since the plea agreement was never accepted by the court. It's never over until the judge says it's over.
I am not surprised that Woody Allen is a supporter of leniance for Roman Pilanski. At the age of 62, he married the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow, with whom he had children, and knew the young lady during his decade-long relationship with Farrow. When she was twenty-one, of legal age at least, he had nude pictures of his psuedo-daughter.
James Woods is another interesting study. At the age of fifty-nine, he dumped his twenty year-old girlfriend after she exhibited narcissistic and inappropriate behavior at his brother's funeral. He had known this young lady since she was five years-old, and watched her grow up, until she was of legal age and he began dating her.
If fame affects justice in any way, I think the consequences should be even more stringent, because they live a privileged life and to many people are role models. That concept may be as equally unfair as a light sentence because of fame and money. Justice should be doled out equally for all.
