A young Roman Polanski with his bride Sharon Tate, who would soon be murdered by the Manson crime familyThere has been a predictable explosion of news articles, OP Ed pieces, blog posts, and related reader comments since the Oscar winning director was arrested in Switzerland on a 32 year old arrest warrant out of Los Angeles.
A lot of noise, passion, and emotion reflecting the public mood—32 years after Polanski’s arrest for having sex with a minor that her mother pushed on Polanski, possibly to set him up for a big civil payday (which payday occurred)—most proclaiming that the “child rapist” should be locked away in prison , and to hell with the rich (former) Hollywood bastard.
But what are the real facts, and what kind of time is Polanski really looking at if he is in fact extradited from Switzerland to face the musical score commenced by a (now diseased) Los Angeles judge who agreed that a 90 day Department of corrections evaluation should govern whether Polanski should get any additional prison time—then when the typically pitiless and cynical California Department of Corrections concluded that Polanski does not belong here—reneged on the deal and told others that he planned to sentence the famed director to prison—prompting Polanski to flee to France?
First, Polanski pleaded guilty to “unlawful intercourse” with a minor in exchange for the other charges being dismissed. He agreed that Judge Laurence Rittenband would determine the sentence. Rittenband sent the filmmaker to the prison in Chino for a 90-day diagnostic evaluation that he said would enable the Court to reach a fair and just decision.
The director did NOT plead guilty to “raping a child”, and subsequently paid the child’s mother a substantial civil settlement. Sorry, but that just never happened.Prison officials released Polanski after 42 days and advised the judge that testing indicated his sentence should not include additional prison time. A furious Judge Rittenband then said he planned to send Polanski back to prison—contrary to the plea deal.
Second, if Polanski is successfully extradited back to Los Angeles on the unlawful sexual intercourse charge, he faces a MAXIMUM of 16 months in state prison on that charge.
Third, it may not come to that.
On the very day that Polanski was arrested, an appellate panel was already deciding—on the exceedingly rare issuance of an aptly named “extraordinary writ”—whether to intervene at the trial court level and reverse the presiding criminal judge’s earlier denial of Polanski’s motion to dismiss the case due to judicial misconduct. The court of appeal took the rare step of requesting opposition from prosecutors, and was in the process of scheduling oral argument on Polanski’s appeal when the director was arrested—raising more questions about fairness and timing. That appeal is still pending.
It should be noted that the presiding criminal judge denied Polanski’s motion to dismiss on the procedural ground that his motion could not be entertained while he remained a fugitive—but supervising criminal judge, Peter Espinoza noted, however, that he found evidence of "substantial . . . [judicial] misconduct."
Fourth, Polanski could either a. try to enforce his plea deal of no additional time pursuant to the Department of Corrections evaluation stating “It is believed that incalculable emotional damage could result from incarcerating the defendant whose own life has been a seemingly endless series of punishments," a reference to the fact that Polanski’s mother was murdered in the Holocaust by Nazi’s, and to the fact that Polanski’s pregnant wife—actress Sharon Tate—had before Polanski’s tryst with the minor been brutally butchered by the Charles Mansion crime family—and her blood painted on the walls of the crime scene; or b. move to set aside the plea, and make the prosecution go to trial on a 32 year old case, wherein the victim now resides out-of-state and has refused to testify.
It should also be noted that at the time the sentencing judge reneged on the plea bargain the victim’s family was also urging the court not to sentence Polanski to any additional jail time.
Fifth , Polanski also potentially faces new charges stemming from his failure to appear in court for the 1978 sentencing hearing—although, in view of the evidence that the sentencing judge intended to renege on the plea deal—who can blame him?
The bottom line is this:
Polanski was never convicted of “raping a child”. In the face of evidence that the minor’s mother set the whole thing up to engineer a big civil payday (which plan worked—the mom who dropped her underage daughter off at the jack Nicholson party where the event occurred cashed in big).
Instead, the director pleaded guilty to “unlawful sexual intercourse” with a minor with the understanding that he would report to state prison in Chino for an evaluation by cynical California Department of Corrections personnel regarding whether Polanski should do more time, and that the recommendation would govern.
The recommendation was that Polanski do no more time.
The sentencing judge told others he was going to renege on the deal and send Polanski back to the joint.
Polanski got on a plane for France, and never looked back (until now).
Polanski’s victim wants the case dropped.
As politically correct (not to mention cheap, easy and without political risk) as it may be to rant and rave that Polanski is a “child rapist” who should do life in prison—life, as with the fact of this case, is a little less black and white and a little more complicated.
Yes, what Polanski did at an earlier time 32 years ago in Los Angeles after his pregnant wife was butchered and the press wrote about it front page for years, and after a frustrated actress and stage mother thrust her daughter at Polanski to engineer a payday (which she collected on) was reprehensible, it was awful and it was wrong.
But that tragic event 32 years ago does not define Polanski’s life, a corrupted system reneged on a deal that it made with Polanski causing him to flee his life in Los Angeles, and all the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office is interested in at this point is cheap political points at the expense fairness.
That is our opinion.
.
BTW, regarding Bill Maher's statement last night on Joy Behar’s new cable talk show—that “I cannot think of anything worse than doing it in the nasty place with a 13 year old”—We would remind you that this is the same Bill Maher who stated on his network TV show six days after the 911 attacks on the World Trade Center (6 days!!!!—while we were still stranded at Heathrow along with the rest of the world watching those planes fly into the towers again and again) that he disagreed with the view that the hijacker’s who killed thousands were “cowardly”.
Said Maher, as he simultaneously defended the hijackers and verbally attacked the United States of America as being “cowardly”:
“We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.”
We therefore question Maher’s moral compass in this or any other ethical matter.
10 comments:
Are you really asking us to believe you endorse convicted felons fleeing the US prior to sentencing?
My dad always said, "people never change--only their circumstances and opportunities change." And this is so true with Polanski--after he diddled a 13-year-old, he left the US and took up with 15-year-old Kinski.
And let's not sell Polanski short--he's not just a pedophile he's also a kiddie pornographer (what did he do with the photos?)
IIRC, wasn't Polanski's plea an open plea? Didn't he swear under oath in court he understood the judge would determine his sentence? At the time of his plea deal, wasn't the recommended incarceration time 1-16 years? Walk into any US prison and asked a convicted pedophile this question: "hey, if you were looking at a 90 day sentence would you flee the country or serve your 90 days?" How many do you think would flee the country? How many would do back flips at having to serve 90 days?
You seem to have an issue with the victim's mother--you believe she set the whole thing up. Just out of curiosity, do you have any proof? You seem to know they received a substantial amount of money--just how much did they receive? I believe the settlement was confidential and none of us will ever know how much money they received, and we'll never know if the settlement requires the victim to say only nice and positive things about Polanski.
Now perhaps all the Polanski supporters believe once he is vindicated he will return to the US where ticker-tape parades await him--does anyone believe (with the exception of his court appearances) INS will allow him to set foot on US soil? Nope, the minute he's done with his sentence, INS will pick him up and hold him in detention pending deportation. I don't believe Polanski will ever be free to prey upon another child in the US.
Kellygreen
This blog does not “endorse” Roman Polanski’s behavior 32 years ago with a minor—conduct that we referred to in the post as “reprehensible and wrong”. We believe that this condemnation is clear and unambiguous. Nor do we "endorse" felons fleeing the United States prior to sentencing.
As to Polanski’s decision to flee to France after the sentencing judge decided to violate the plea agreement after the California Department of Corrections determined in a written evaluation that Polanski should not be sent to prison, we understand Polanski’s panic in trying to flee from an unjust and biased judge who decided to shred a deal he signed off on, that motivated Polanski to agree to spend the initial 42 days in Chino State Prison to be evaluated.
Regarding the victims mother, we believe that dropping her daughter off unsupervised and unescorted at a party at the Jack Nicholson residence in 1977 was also
Reprehensible. The mother was an actress (albeit a not very successful one) and knew full well what went on at Nicholson parties in the late ‘70’s.
The mother did sue and obtain a substantial settlement, in our view for a situation that she in effect facilitated if not engineered.
What sense does it make to bring Polanski back after all of these years to serve the few weeks in prison that the original sentencing judge was inclined to unlawfully tack onto the Polanski sentence—only to send him right back to Europe through deportation proceedings. The status quo already is that Polanski has not set foot here for 32 years?
Last, there is no evidence that I am aware of that Polanski is a pedophile, or that he has repeated his despicable misconduct—for which he did prison time, had to part with a substantial civil settlement, and had to leave Los Angeles (his home) for 32 years, and that cost him his personal reputation.
Polanski has paid a price for his misconduct—albeit not the same price that would be paid if this conduct occurred in 2009. But then, 1977 was a different time, and Los Angeles in 1977 was a different place indeed.
This in no way excuses what Polanski did in 1977, but the procedural and other aspects of the case demand discourse. And we are not "Polanski supporters".
We support fairness and the United States Constitution and abhor judicial corruption or misconduct in any form.
It is a cheap and easy populist angle to tap into public anger and jealousy toward the rich and accomplished, but I would submit that if Polanski had been a "nobody" in Los Angeles in 1977, no secret grand jury would have been convened to investigate a routine sex case, the plea bargain (that the Department of Corrections evaluation would govern whether Polanski would do additional prison time, and which evaluation concluded he should not) would have been honored, and certainly none of us would have read about the case--ever.
This is especially true in view of the fact that the victim's family told prosecutors and the court on day-one that Polanski should not do more time beyond his 42 days in prison as well as the victim's current statements that the case should be dismissed.
Or do Polanski bashers all of a sudden not respect the views of the victim in a criminal case? If the victim (who is now 45 years old) says the case should be dropped, who are you to say otherwise?
Yes, Polanski pleaded guilty to a crime: That he had “unlawful sex” with a minor. (In our father’s age this was called “statutory rape”.)
The plea deal that the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office (at the request of the victims mom) signed off on was that Polanski plead guilty to the misdemeanor (in the sense of pleading to a “wobbler” with a potential misdemeanor disposition), the ultimate sentence to be determined by (and here was the rub for Polanski) the typically cynical Department of Corrections (CDC), meaning that Polanski would have to go into, and become AN INMATE in THE JOINT for up to 90 days to even hope for a desired outcome.
Polanski did agree, so did the DA’s Office, so did the sentencing judge, and so did the victims family.
But the CDC reported back to the court that Polanski WAS NOT a candidate for additional prison time and believe me the CDC knows who does, and who does not, belong in the joint—and is not shy about expressing it.
The judge at that point RENEGED ON THE DEAL, it got back to Polanski, and Polanski bolted to Paris.
If we are going to even reference the “deal”, even Steve Cooley must concede that the deal-is-the-deal, the deal calls for no additional time for Polanski, and the victim—who is now 44 years old—has also told Cooley’s office (and the court) that she thinks Polanski as been punished enough and that the case should be dismissed.
Forgive me, but when did Steve Cooley eschew his professed “victims rights” position in favor of ignoring an adult victim’s wishes after 32 years of reflection on her part?
PS TO 10/1/2009@11:21 pm:
The mother of the minor collected a quick $500,000.
In 1978 dollars.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/roman-polanski-paid-samantha-geimer-601583-in-civil-settlement-of-sexual-assault.html
http://www.kansascity.com/440/story/1485537.html
This is the equivalent of $1,655.00 2009 dollars.
http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/
From the LA Times:
“Geimer [the victim], now a mother of four, has said repeatedly and publicly that she thinks Polanski was treated unfairly and expressed a desire for the case to be resolved without prison time.
When Polanski sought to have the rape charge dismissed in 2008, she told The Times she welcomed an opportunity to finally end the case. "It's been a long time," she said. "I don't wish for him to be held to further punishment or consequences."
In 2003 she wrote an opinion piece for The Times saying the case should not be a barrier to Polanski's winning an Academy Award.
Polanski ended up winning best director for "The Pianist."
GET IT PEOPLE?
T-H-E V-I-C-T-I-M D-O-E-S N-O-T W-A-N-T P-O-L-N-S-K-I P-U-N-I-S-H-E-D.
So get off of your POLITICALLY CORRECT HIGH HORSES and respect the 45 year old victim's wishes.
That is all.
I must say that Polanski did not allow this incident (which the victim, now 45 years old, has forgiven) to define his life.
Nor did he allow his mother's murder in the Holocaust, his own narrow escape from the Nazi camps, nor the brutal murder of his pregnant wife (including a decade of wall-to-wall publicity about the Manson murder) to define his life.
Instead, unlike the majority of those who identify as "victims", Polanski did something creative with his adult life (as opposed to whining about ho tough he had it).
"It has long been my personal opinion that he be allowed to do so," the victim wrote to Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Larry P. Fidler on May 28, 1997. "It is also my opinion as the victim of this crime that the 42 days he has already served is excessive."
She filed a similar statement in connection with Polanski’s pending California appeal from his most recent bid to seek a dismissal of the charges.
If the victim feels that way, who are we to say otherwise?
If the victim would like to forgive him, that is her prerogative, but this is not a civil case; the government of the United States has its own interest in prosecuting Polanski regardless of her feelings. Polanski's act was the act of a sexual predator and it is in the interest of the United States, and of any civilized society, to take such predators off the streets.
It is also in the interest of the United States, and of any civilized society, to levy additional punishment on those who take advantage of wealth and connections to try to escape justice.
Personally, I consider the whole idea of plea-bargaining to be a travesty of justice, but all right, accepting that it is part of the system, it should be respected and the law upheld, until such time as the practice is abolished...
But.
While Polanski may have pled guilty to "sexual intercourse with a minor," the victim's testimony at the time made it quite clear that what he did was rape by any standard. Not just statutory rape, but "rape-rape," as Whoopi Goldberg so quaintly put it.
It was never proven, of course, since that charge was never tried in court. It is conceivable that the victim was lying, and Polanski is entitled to the legal presumption of innocence. But I certainly cannot see why he is entitled to any special deference. Considering his subsequent behavior, I should say quite the opposite.
If there was judicial misconduct, it should be investigated, and Polanski should receive all the legal protections he is entitled to... but not an inch more.
Dear Evan:
You make valid points, but the case has already been litigated and the appropriate sentence determined.
Polanski pleaded guilty to what he pleaded guilty to, and to borrow your unfortunate pun “not one inch more”.
That guilty plea was attached to a unique plea bargain that required Polanski to agree to be remanded to the California Department of Corrections (a tough, cynical group by any measure) and to submit to a “90 day evaluation”, the results to govern whether Polanski would get straight probation or additional prison.
Polanski took that risk, he did his 42 days in Chino State Prison during the evaluation period, and the evaluation recommended no additional incarceration for Polanski.
Therefore, yes, the State of California had an interest, separate and apart from the interests of the victims mother who agreed to the deal that was struck to prosecute Polanski, and the way that the People of the State of California decided in their discretion to implement that interest was the above deal—which is a done deal.
Therefore, Polanski is entitled to his time served probationary deal. (Simply allowing Polanski to withdraw the plea would not be fair, since in reliance on the deal, Polanski submitted to the in-prison evaluation and took the risk that the report would go against him.)
Last, it is not just a matter of the (now 45 year old) victim “forgiving” Polanski.
Under the so called “Victims Bill of Rights” enacted by the voters in 1982 and now a part of the state constitution, the victim has a right to formally address the court and make her wishes known, and the court is required to consider them. That is the law in California.
The victim did that formally in 1997, telling the court that Polanski had already served an “excessive” amount of time in prison and that she wants the case to be dropped.
In 2009, when Polanski filed a petition in the California Court of Appeal Los Angeles seeking to toss his case, the victim formally asked the court of appeal for leave to file a formal victim statement in that action as well, reiterating a decade later, that Polanski had already served an “excessive” amount of time in prison and that she wants the case to be dropped.
Viewed in that context, and keeping in mind that Polanski fled after the sentencing judge indicated he would break the deal, bringing Polanski back 32 years later to simply give him the probation to which he is entitled and to charge him with a failure to appear in court (a misdemeanor) seems ridiculous.
When one adds the fact that in 1983 Polanski paid to the victim $500,000 in cash compensation, who has the better argument for dismissal, the victim and Roman Polanski, or you—a stranger to the case?
Post a Comment