Roman Polanski arrested

[Nin]

This week-end the famous Franco-Polish film director Roman Polanski has been arrested in Switzerland in order to be extraded towards the US for a vice affair about having sex with an 13 year old girl in 1977.

Back then, Polanski fled the US and never came back there, not even to get his oscar for "The Pianist". He is, among others, the author of movies like Rosemary's Baby, Oliver Twist or Chinatown. His life history is a movie per se. But I don't want to talk about it as it has no direct interference with this case.

Anyway, I was quite shocked, because it is not the first time that Mr. Polanski came to Switzerland since 1977, he has not ever been implied in any other pedophile act ever since, the girl in question has never pressed charges and has publicly asked to leave Mr. Polanski in peace (she is now 45 and lives as a married woman with children in Hawai) - so I mainly think that the reason to arrest Mr. Polanski now was to be in good terms with the US about the Swiss bank and tax issues.

While I do not claim that having sex with a 13-year old is or should be legal - but then so what about the many countries where women are married at this age - I think that poursuit of Mr. Polanski is also harrassment because of his celebrity and is vain after so many years without any recidive and when the victim herself has forgiven him - and led a normal life.

But I expect several of you to think otherwise.

[axordil]

It is not required for anyone to press charges in a felony case, as I understand it. Nor does the forgiveness of the victim make the crime go away. Crime is not a private matter, but a public one, an offense against society, not just an individual. Otherwise we would have only civil courts. Even if the victim's wishes were heeded, he is still guilty of jumping bail/unlawful flight.

I do not know and do not care why Switzerland acted now and not before, but Polanski has been a fugitive from justice for far too long, in fact protected by that same celebrity.

[anthriel]

but Polanski has been a fugitive from justice for far too long, in fact protected by that same celebrity.

I quite agree. He committed a criminal act, and that is not something that someone should be able to hide from, no matter how many good movies he has made.

[MithLuin]

1977 was a long time ago, though. Don't most crimes have a statute of limitations? [I realize that pedophilia is one crime in particular where some effort is made to bypass that.] Perhaps changes in those laws would explain why Switzerland acted now but not before; or perhaps he had some other (unrelated) reason that brought him to the attention of the police?

[axordil]

There is no statute of limitation for jumping bail, as the crime is ongoing.

[Inanna]

1977 was a long time ago, though. Don't most crimes have a statute of limitations? [I realize that pedophilia is one crime in particular where some effort is made to bypass that.] Perhaps changes in those laws would explain why Switzerland acted now but not before; or perhaps he had some other (unrelated) reason that brought him to the attention of the police?

I heard on WNYC this morning, that his warrant has been lying, still active, in LA. Then last year, the documentary ""Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" came out, Polanski's lawyers contacted the DA demanding that the charges be dropped. This brought the case to the DA's attention... and set the ball rolling.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Polanski's already been convicted of the crime. In fact he pleaded guilty to it pursuant to the a plea deal. The complication of his case is that the judge and prosecutor then backed out of the plea deal, which is why Polanski fled. He was going to get more jail time then he had agreed to in the plea deal (or so I understand). While I certainly don't justify what he did, there are definitely issues of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in his case that are also quite disturbing.

[MithLuin]

Ah, okay, I understand now. I didn't realize he'd already been put on trial and convicted. So, presumably, he would attempt to get a retrial?

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

Is there a legal leg for Polanski to stand on with regards to the judge and prosecutor backing out of the plea deal? To me that is as important as doing the nasty with a 13-year-old. Can criminals trust the legal system if backing out of deals goes unpunished? or was it punished already?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

TED, a couple of years ago, Polanski's lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The judge hearing that motion (the original judge has passed away), refused to rule on the merits of the motion, saying that he would not do so unless Polanski was actually present. That decision is currently on appeal and is scheduled to be heard by the California Court of Appeal in the near future. Of course, it might become a moot point if Polanski is extradited.

I'm not up on all the details of what allegedly happened, but it does sound like justice was not properly administered in this case. And I agree that that is a grave concern.

[Cerin]

They certainly do a poor job of reporting this story.

Seems like it might have been a better idea to stick around and try to fight the sentence on prosecutorial misconduct grounds, rather than fleeing.

I think that poursuit of Mr. Polanski is also harrassment because of his celebrity

I suppose it is more likely that an unknown person in the same position would have disappeared into the mists long ago. I wouldn't term it harassment, but just one of the many hazards of being famous. Harassment implies that those seeking him are in the wrong, but they aren't, at least not in legal terms.

[Cerin]

So this from another message board:

It's not that the DA reneged on the plea deal. It became apparent that the Judge was going to ignore the plea deal (as is his perogative as far as I know), and sentence him to a long prison sentence.

Voronwë, do you know if it is a judge's prerogative to ignore a plea deal?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The short answer is "yes" but the long answer is more complicated. A judge does need to approve a plea deal, but if she or he rejects it, the defendant needs to be given a chance to withdraw the plea. As I understand it, in Polanski's case the judge allegedly had improper discussions with a prosecutor not involved in the case after the plea deal and otherwise indicated a specific bias against Polanski.

[N.E. Brigand]

This week-end the famous Franco-Polish film director Roman Polanski has been arrested in Switzerland in order to be extraded towards the US for a vice affair about having sex with an 13 year old girl in 1977....
While I do not claim that having sex with a 13-year old is or should be legal --but then so what about the many countries where women are married at this age-- I think that pursuit of Mr. Polanski is also harrassment because of his celebrity and is vain after so many years without any recidive and when the victim herself has forgiven him, and led a normal life.

Polanski is alleged to have done rather more than just have sex with the 13-year-old girl, by the way. That was what I had heard about the case prior to his arrest in Switzerland, but subsequent reports claim that the victim's testimony in 1977, which she has never modified, was that on the evening in question, Polanski drugged her and forced her to have sex against her protests.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, lets be clear: this is rape, not "merely" statutory rape.