A young Roman Polanski with his bride Sharon Tate, who would soon be murdered by the Manson crime family
There 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.
We previously brought you the story of Judge Robert C. Nalley, who let the air out of a poor female courthouse employee’s tire for having the temerity to park in Judge Nally’s preferred (but not reserved or marked) parking spot.
