Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland

[anon_vlad]

No but at least the cocksucker is in jail for a very long time. What he got convicted off in my own opinion, if it had of been anybody else they would of got off much easier but they were out to get him, looks good on him.

OJ's lawyer somehow not only got the jury to disregard all the circumstantial evidence (Others have been convicted on less.), but also to believe that DNA testing was unreliable or that Simpson was framed. Perhaps, the predominantly black jury thought of the number of times that whites escaped punishment for killing blacks and/or had less trust of the police than whites. OJ got a bit too cute and embarassed the legal authorities further when he agreed to participate in the creation of a book and TV special about how he would have murdered them if he was guilty.

As for Polanski, I always thought that statutory rape (sex with someone below the age of consent) should not always be punished nearly as severely as forcible rape. I know of someone who hired an escort from a very well known agency on merb thinking that she was 19. She later told him that she was only 17. Imagine what would have happened to his life had he been arrested!

Before this thread, I thought that Polanski might have been mistaken in his estimate of the victim's age and also that she acquiesced. I don't understand how anyone can defend drugging a girl and then using force when she still refuses.

 

[Techman]

It depends on the type of plea bargain, there are two main types. I'm not aware of which type of agreement Polanski was offered. In any case, plea agreements are usually held to by the courts due to the amount of money they save the system. If judges routinely rejected the proposed sentence, the offers would not be as readily accepted. Anyways, I'm not a lawyer but I am a man of my word and I believe that any deal made in good faith should be upheld. Especially when, as in the Polanski case, the deal was proposed by the prosecutor and not by the defense. If those who run the system are without honour, then the entire system isn't worth shit in my opinion. Of course I'm sure that there are some here who believe that Polanski should have been hung by the balls without even so much as a trial. No one in history has ever made any false claims about rape after all and I'm sure that every word the 'victim' said was the absolute truth, even though no one ever had the chance to cross examine her because it...never...went...to...trial. So convenient that fact. Offer a deal to save the 'victim' the stress of a jury trial and the disclosure of her sexual history, and then reneg on the deal. Such an honourable system they have there.

An 11(c)(1)(B) agreement does not bind the court; the prosecutor's recommendation is merely advisory, and the defendant cannot withdraw his plea if the court decides to impose a sentence other than what was stipulated in the agreement. An 11(c)(1)(C) agreement does bind the court once the court accepts the agreement. When such an agreement is proposed, the court can reject it if it disagrees with the proposed sentence, in which case the defendant has an opportunity to withdraw his plea.

 

[daydreamer41]

I am assuming you are quoting Canadian law. U.S. federal law and state laws are different than Canada's law.

Under the US Constitution, you have a 5th Admendment right against testifying against yourself. Once you start talking to law enforcement. or a court, you cannot take back your 5th Admendment right. The Supreme Court ruled in what is called the Miranda decision that LE must advise you of your rights to remain silent before they can what you say as evidence against you.

Under a plea agreement, you are 99 percent of the time agreing to plea to a lesser offense. The only time you may not is if your crime was so horrific, like a brutal first degree murder, where the plea agreement is life in prison instead of the death pentaly. In the death pentaly cases, the Judge must follow state law and many states restrict a Judge from independently given the death pentaly.

But with non-capital murder cases, the Judge has laditude in either accepting a lower plea or not. But if a defendant pleas guilty to a lesser offense, the Judge has the complete laditude in sentencing the defendant from the miniimum pentaly set by the legistlature to the maximum.

Example - Let's say someone is charged with aggrevated assault, and the minimum and maximum sentence is from 1 year to 6 years in prison. The defense attorney and prosecutor agree to a charge of simple assault with full resitution to the victiim. Simple assault carries from probation to 4 years in prison. The prosecutor recommends 6 months in prison plus full restitution of all medical bills, time off of work, plus an agreed amount to be paid for pain and suffering.

The Judge can accept the plea but he can sentence the defendent to 4 years plus restitution. It's above and beyond the plea agreement that the prosecution and the defense attorney had agreed upon, but any agreement is just a recommendation to the judge, and only a recommendation. The Judge still has the power to sentence to the maximum allowed for the charge that the person is pleading guilty to.

And once the defendant has plead guilty to the offense, he cannot withdraw his guilty plea because of the sentence. The only thing he can appeal is the actual sentence and not the fact of guilt or innocence.

 

[Doc Holliday]

OJ's lawyer somehow not only got the jury to disregard all the circumstantial evidence (Others have been convicted on less.), but also to believe that DNA testing was unreliable or that Simpson was framed. Perhaps, the predominantly black jury thought of the number of times that whites escaped punishment for killing blacks and/or had less trust of the police than whites. OJ got a bit too cute and embarassed the legal authorities further when he agreed to participate in the creation of a book and TV special about how he would have murdered them if he was guilty.

I always felt the turning point in the case happened when Chris Darden (one of the prosecutors) decided to have Simpson try on the glove. That glove had since dried up & shrinked. Simpson was an actor (not a very good one, but still) and of course did his best to try to show that the glove didn't fit his hand. He had to wear latex gloves while putting on the infamous glove, which made it even tougher. End result: it appeared that the glove didn't fit, and that image stayed on the jury's mind for the entire trial, and was one of the key arguements of defense lawyer Johnny Cochrane in his summation to the jury: "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!" He repeatedly said so. And they bought it.

 

[Techman]

Sorry daydreamer41, I'm quoting US law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_agreement#United_States

And I have to address something here while I'm at it. Despite what one particular member here is trying to portray, I'm not supporting what Polanski did. What he did was stupid and sick and he should have paid a price for it. But that should have been through a jury trial, not some half baked agreement that they didn't even go through with. And there's more than one guilty party here. The girl's mother should have been charged with parental neglect or child endangerment or whatever similar offense existed at the time of the incident. If something like that happened today, she would have had her daughter taken away from her and she would have been charged as an accomplice to the alledged crime. I think her mother was a forerunner of Dina Lohan, Lindsey's mother, who will go to any lengths to live her life on her daughter's back. And she has another one waiting in the wings, unfortunately.

Most here are taking the testimony of a 13 year old girl as the total and absolute truth. And we all know that young girls, and boys, never lie to cover their own ass. Not that I take Polanski's version to be the absolute truth either. The truth, whatever it is, probably falls somewhere in the middle as it usually does. Justice will never be served in this case. It's too late for that and even the victim wishes it to be dropped. How many millions of dollars is this costing that could be put to much better use if it was put towards preventing child abuse for example? And there's absolutely no chance of a fair trial today because you could never find 12 people to sit on a jury who were not already aware of the 'facts' of the case. If he ever is brought back I can see nothing more than mistrial after mistrial, costing even more millions and millions of dollars. What a waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_agreement

 

[JH Fan]

If he ever is brought back I can see nothing more than mistrial after mistrial, costing even more millions and millions of dollars. What a waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_agreement

Techman ... you da man !

That's my fre*kin point.

A show for lawyers that will cost big for what ?
To have another of those shows on tv like O.J., Clinton and so on...

You want a show ? why don't you take down Manson once and for all.

You know... the SOB responsible for the stabbing and killing of Tate (Polanski's wife) while she was pregnant.

But no... the so called justice system let this insane b*stard mother f*ck*r out way to many times.

 

[Merlot]

Sorry daydreamer41, I'm quoting US law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_agreement#United_States

And I have to address something here while I'm at it. Despite what one particular member here is trying to portray, I'm not supporting what Polanski did. What he did was stupid and sick and he should have paid a price for it. But that should have been through a jury trial, not some half baked agreement that they didn't even go through with. And there's more than one guilty party here. The girl's mother should have been charged with parental neglect or child endangerment or whatever similar offense existed at the time of the incident. If something like that happened today, she would have had her daughter taken away from her and she would have been charged as an accomplice to the alledged crime. I think her mother was a forerunner of Dina Lohan, Lindsey's mother, who will go to any lengths to live her life on her daughter's back. And she has another one waiting in the wings, unfortunately.

Most here are taking the testimony of a 13 year old girl as the total and absolute truth. And we all know that young girls, and boys, never lie to cover their own ass. Not that I take Polanski's version to be the absolute truth either. The truth, whatever it is, probably falls somewhere in the middle as it usually does. Justice will never be served in this case. It's too late for that and even the victim wishes it to be dropped. How many millions of dollars is this costing that could be put to much better use if it was put towards preventing child abuse for example? And there's absolutely no chance of a fair trial today because you could never find 12 people to sit on a jury who were not already aware of the 'facts' of the case. If he ever is brought back I can see nothing more than mistrial after mistrial, costing even more millions and millions of dollars. What a waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_agreement

Hello Techman,

I'm going to accept for a moment that everything you say is absolutely true. Now let's suppose the mother and/or father were criminally irresponsible. Let's also suppose a 13-year-old girl was a habitual drinker, a drug addict, and a sexual nymphomaniac and was so desperate to get into movies that she would do anything including letting or even demanding a 40-year-old man in a very key position to get her what she wanted to fuck the living crap out of her...and Polanski knew all of that. Okay, it's decision time for Polanski to fuck or not to fuck a 13-year-old drunk, drugged, nympho girl who wants to trade sex for "a favor". How can any of these circumstances and encouragements make it okay for a 40-year-old adult to have sex with a 13-year-old????? Please explain how any of these circumstances excused him from the law, common decency, or general morality...or being a responsible adult in his own right.

I never presumed she was being totally truthful. But what a 13-year-old girl may be or want or be trying to get away with CANNOT remove the moral, legal or responsibility to decency of any adult regardless of any circumstance.

I am assuming you are quoting Canadian law. U.S. federal law and state laws are different than Canada's law.

Under the US Constitution, you have a 5th Admendment right against testifying against yourself. Once you start talking to law enforcement. or a court, you cannot take back your 5th Admendment right. The Supreme Court ruled in what is called the Miranda decision that LE must advise you of your rights to remain silent before they can what you say as evidence against you.

Under a plea agreement, you are 99 percent of the time agreing to plea to a lesser offense. The only time you may not is if your crime was so horrific, like a brutal first degree murder, where the plea agreement is life in prison instead of the death pentaly. In the death pentaly cases, the Judge must follow state law and many states restrict a Judge from independently given the death pentaly.

But with non-capital murder cases, the Judge has laditude in either accepting a lower plea or not. But if a defendant pleas guilty to a lesser offense, the Judge has the complete laditude in sentencing the defendant from the miniimum pentaly set by the legistlature to the maximum.

Example - Let's say someone is charged with aggrevated assault, and the minimum and maximum sentence is from 1 year to 6 years in prison. The defense attorney and prosecutor agree to a charge of simple assault with full resitution to the victiim. Simple assault carries from probation to 4 years in prison. The prosecutor recommends 6 months in prison plus full restitution of all medical bills, time off of work, plus an agreed amount to be paid for pain and suffering.

The Judge can accept the plea but he can sentence the defendent to 4 years plus restitution. It's above and beyond the plea agreement that the prosecution and the defense attorney had agreed upon, but any agreement is just a recommendation to the judge, and only a recommendation. The Judge still has the power to sentence to the maximum allowed for the charge that the person is pleading guilty to.

And once the defendant has plead guilty to the offense, he cannot withdraw his guilty plea because of the sentence. The only thing he can appeal is the actual sentence and not the fact of guilt or innocence.

BINGO!

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Dee]

Post # 108 .... Oh yes... problems with evidence (bet that's the first time it has ever happened in a criminal case)... (especially if you ignore the fact that Polanski admitted to the crime... but wait, I know you will argue: Who can trust the word of a man who plies a child with liquor, drugs her and rapes her... good point... )

 

[JH Fan]

BTW Merlot

Polanski isn't Russian.

 

[Chigen]

His origins are Polish, but he is French born.

 

[Techman]

People can't read or something?

Merlot, where did I say that Polanski had no responsibility for what happened? Could you point that out to me? People keep saying I've posted this but I really can't see where I did. I'm seriously getting tired of being accused of things I never said. I've said he was wrong. I've said he should have been punished for what he did. What the fuck else do you want me to do? Go to Europe and kidnap him and bring him back?

And could someone show me where Polanski admitted to raping and druggiing the girl? As far as I know he pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor and has always insisted she was a willing partner.

I haven't once in this thread attacked or insulted anyone or claimed they said something they didn't. Unlike Dee who insists on being a big man on merc but doesn't have the balls to post his childish attacks on me here where crap like that isn't tolerated. And I really get a chuckle out of seeing someone who once supported a family's right to commit honour killings trying to portray himself as the guardian of children's rights in this and other threads.

 

[daydreamer41]

Techman.

There is nothing in your link that contradicts what I have already said. The defendant can withdraw the guilty plea if the Judge rejects the entire plea, but not if the Judge accepts the plea (lesser charge) and gives the defendant a sentence that the defendant does not like.


United States
Main article: Plea bargaining in the United States
Plea bargaining is a significant part of the criminal justice system in the United States; the vast majority (roughly 90%)[5] of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial[6][7]. Plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court, and different States and jurisdictions have different rules. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are followed in federal cases and have been created to ensure a standard of uniformity in all cases decided in the federal courts. A two- or three-level offense level reduction is usually available for those who accept responsibility by not holding the prosecution to the burden of proving its case; this usually amounts to about a 35% sentence reduction.[8]

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide for two main types of plea agreements. An 11(c)(1)(B) agreement does not bind the court; the prosecutor's recommendation is merely advisory, and the defendant cannot withdraw his plea if the court decides to impose a sentence other than what was stipulated in the agreement. An 11(c)(1)(C) agreement does bind the court once the court accepts the agreement. When such an agreement is proposed, the court can reject it if it disagrees with the proposed sentence, in which case the defendant has an opportunity to withdraw his plea.[9]

Plea bargains are so common in the Superior Courts of California that the Judicial Council of California has published an optional seven-page form (containing all mandatory advisements required by federal and state law) to help prosecutors and defense attorneys reduce such bargains into written plea agreements.[10]

Several features of the American justice system tend to promote plea bargaining. The adversarial nature of the system puts judges in a passive role, in which they have independent access to information with which to assess the strength of the case against the defendant. The parties thus can control the outcome of the case by exercising their rights or bargaining them away. The lack of compulsory prosecution also gives prosecutors greater discretion. And the inability of crime victims to mount a private prosecution and their limited ability to influence plea agreements also tends to encourage plea bargaining.[11]

Sorry daydreamer41, I'm quoting US law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_agreement#United_States

And I have to address something here while I'm at it. Despite what one particular member here is trying to portray, I'm not supporting what Polanski did. What he did was stupid and sick and he should have paid a price for it. But that should have been through a jury trial, not some half baked agreement that they didn't even go through with. And there's more than one guilty party here. The girl's mother should have been charged with parental neglect or child endangerment or whatever similar offense existed at the time of the incident. If something like that happened today, she would have had her daughter taken away from her and she would have been charged as an accomplice to the alledged crime. I think her mother was a forerunner of Dina Lohan, Lindsey's mother, who will go to any lengths to live her life on her daughter's back. And she has another one waiting in the wings, unfortunately.

Most here are taking the testimony of a 13 year old girl as the total and absolute truth. And we all know that young girls, and boys, never lie to cover their own ass. Not that I take Polanski's version to be the absolute truth either. The truth, whatever it is, probably falls somewhere in the middle as it usually does. Justice will never be served in this case. It's too late for that and even the victim wishes it to be dropped. How many millions of dollars is this costing that could be put to much better use if it was put towards preventing child abuse for example? And there's absolutely no chance of a fair trial today because you could never find 12 people to sit on a jury who were not already aware of the 'facts' of the case. If he ever is brought back I can see nothing more than mistrial after mistrial, costing even more millions and millions of dollars. What a waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_agreement

 

[Techman]

Like I posted above, it seems that people really can't read! Look at this part of the quote you posted regarding the two types of plea bargain, the enlarged highlite at the beginning is mine:

An 11(c)(1)(C) agreement does bind the court once the court accepts the agreement. When such an agreement is proposed, the court can reject it if it disagrees with the proposed sentence, in which case the defendant has an opportunity to withdraw his plea.[9]

As opposed to the first part:

An 11(c)(1)(B) agreement does not bind the court; the prosecutor's recommendation is merely advisory, and the defendant cannot withdraw his plea if the court decides to impose a sentence other than what was stipulated in the agreement.

As I said, there are two types of plea bargain and I do not know which was proposed to Polanski. But if it was the 11(c)(1)(B), his lawyer made a mistake trusting the judge and should have pushed for an 11(c)(1)(C). Asuming that that's even possible which I have no idea because I'm not a lawyer. I only play one on MERB.

I rest my case.

 

[Dee]

1. she was a willing partner.

2. Unlike Dee who insists on being a big man on merc but doesn't have the balls to post his childish attacks on me here where crap like that isn't tolerated.

Re 1. Someone please tell me that it's just an optical illusion.

Re 2. Someone please tell me that Techman is ironic rather then moronic.

 

[Mod 8]

Hello Dee,

Re 1. I advise you to refrain from taking quotes out of context to continue what seems to be a personal agenda against Techman. If you were to quote the entire statement you would see that he is not giving a personal opinion as you are attempting to make it look.

If this behavior continues, your posting days on MERB will come to very abrupt end.

Mod 8

 

[Dee]

Hello Dee,

Re 1. I advise you to refrain from taking quotes out of context to continue what seems to be a personal agenda against Techman. If you were to quote the entire statement you would see that he is not giving a personal opinion as you are attempting to make it look.

If this behavior continues, your posting days on MERB will come to very abrupt end.

Mod 8

Thanks Mod8 I hear you and am not arguing. The original full post is there for everyone to read and I would just add that as I read it the scandalous statement by Polanski was put forward by the poster as a kind of defence, in effect, quoted with approval. Frankly just about the whole world would reject it.

Once again I am not asking that anyone be banned but the statement against a whole group of people that they eat "merde" is something that I had thought might not have been allowed to stand. This board has been proud of not stooping to the level of the other board... that is where the mudslinging takes place ... if one is banned from it, one can still use (as has been demonstrated) human proxies effectively.

This thread is one that I feel strongly about and consequently lose some control... I think it best I heed what you have said and I won't post in this thread for at least a week. I had sworn off further posting but keep coming back... now I won't.

PS... I'll make a note on the other board.

 

[Mod 8]

Dee,

I have also read what you have been posting on merc. Considering the attacks and insults you and others have posted there, his reply was an exercise in restraint. I am already considering banning you for coming here for what seems to be no other reason than to stir up shit. If you have a problem with Techman, settle it off MERB. Any more attempts to goad him or anyone else into a flame war and you will be banned from MERB permanently.

Mod 8

 

[daydreamer41]

Like I posted above, it seems that people really can't read! Look at this part of the quote you posted regarding the two types of plea bargain, the enlarged highlite at the beginning is mine:

An 11(c)(1)(C) agreement does bind the court once the court accepts the agreement. When such an agreement is proposed, the court can reject it if it disagrees with the proposed sentence, in which case the defendant has an opportunity to withdraw his plea.[9]

As opposed to the first part:

An 11(c)(1)(B) agreement does not bind the court; the prosecutor's recommendation is merely advisory, and the defendant cannot withdraw his plea if the court decides to impose a sentence other than what was stipulated in the agreement.

As I said, there are two types of plea bargain and I do not know which was proposed to Polanski. But if it was the 11(c)(1)(B), his lawyer made a mistake trusting the judge and should have pushed for an 11(c)(1)(C). Asuming that that's even possible which I have no idea because I'm not a lawyer. I only play one on MERB.

I rest my case.

Your case is weak and you are not reading correctly.

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide for two main types of plea agreements.

An 11(c)(1)(B) agreement does not bind the court; the prosecutor's recommendation is merely advisory, and the defendant cannot withdraw his plea if the court decides to impose a sentence other than what was stipulated in the agreement.

An 11(c)(1)(C) agreement does bind the court once the court accepts the agreement. When such an agreement is proposed, the court can reject it if it disagrees with the proposed sentence, in which case the defendant has an opportunity to withdraw his plea.[9]

The above is directly from your link.

In plain English, 11(c)(1)(B) says that the agreement does not bind the court. The prosecutor is making a recommendation and the defendent cannot withdraw the plea if he disagrees with a sentence other than what was recommended.

11(c)(1)(C) says that the court bound once the court accepts the agreement. The court can not accept any plea bargain. The key word is once ... as in once the court accepts the agreement.

In both instances, it is the discreation of the Judge to accept a plea agreement.

Plus, this statue is probably Federal. Each state court operates differntly in accordance to the laws of the particular state.

Sorry, but you are not correct in your intrepretation. You can consult Eager Beaver if you want. Maybe he will have some insight into our debate.

 

[Doc Holliday]

And I really get a chuckle out of seeing someone who once supported a family's right to commit honour killings trying to portray himself as the guardian of children's rights in this and other threads.

I also had a good chuckle over that one.

 

[Techman]

An 11(c)(1)(C) agreement does bind the court once the court accepts the agreement. When such an agreement is proposed, the court can reject it if it disagrees with the proposed sentence, in which case the defendant has an opportunity to withdraw his plea.[

If that was the type of agreement proposed, if the court refects it the defendant has the right to withdraw his plea. So if that is the type of plea that was offered, and I can't say if it was or not, then he would have the right to withdraw his plea. I don't see what you don't understand about that?