The 90 days in a mental facility in Chino was not his sentence. That was an automatic mental evaluation for being labeled a Mentally Defective Sex Offender (MDSO) due to the fact that the girl who Polanski admitted raping was under the age of 14. The results of this evaluation was to be used in for sentencing. Polanski claims in retrospect that he was promised he would get time served. In the transcript of the plea hearing Polanski says both that he was promised nothing with respect to sentencing, and the he could still be sentenced to up to 20 years for the felony he was pleading guilty. There is no 48 days, there never was. I would hope that Saleten would have read all relevant publicly available court document before writing about a subject.

The DA's office did accept a plea and according to those in the office the acceptance was conditional on the sentencing. In other words Polanski's lawyers wouldn't of agreed to a plea unless they were told the associated sentencing.

Polanski needs to return so the courts can close this case but the state should honor the terms of the accected plea.

The DA's office may have accepted the plea bargain, but that does not require the judge to sentence in accordance with that bargain. In fact, defendants are told that the judge can sentence them to the maximium allowable according to the crime they plead guilty to. Polanski was never sentenced, and the court is still within its rights to sentence him to the maximum allowed under the law as it was when he pled guilty. Judges sentence defendents outside of agreements made between the prosecution and defense every day.

Then what's the incentive to accept a plea bargain -- unless the crime you are pleading down to has a way smaller penalty?

Risking 20 years doesn't sound very smart to me. That implies that it's expected for Judges to go along with the sentencing recommendation.

Judges do usually follow the recommendations because they want cases to settle and they want defendants to be able to rely on prosecutor's promises. However, the court always retains the ultimate discretion and is obligated to use that discretion regardless of the recommendation, otherwise they are just a rubber-stamp. That's why defendants are informed at entry of the plea that the judge may not follow the agreement, and may or may not allow the defendant to withdraw the plea if they do not.

So what was Polanski's incentive to enter the plea? Dismissed charges and the very good chance that if he showed remorse the judge would impose a lesser sentence than if he denied the allegations, went to trial and was convicted on all charges.

That is one of the dangers if judges sentence outside of plea agreements too much, one side or another will stop agreeing to them.

It may not seem all that smart, but according to the transcript of the plea hearing.

<link>

Gunson: What is the maximum sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse?

Defendant: It's one to fifteen--twenty years in State Prison

Gunson:... Mr. Polanski, who do you believe will decide what your sentence will be in this matter?

Defendant: The Judge.

Gunson: Do you understand that at this time, the court has not made any decision as to what sentence you will receive.

Defendant: (No response)

Gunson: Do you understand that the Judge has not mad any decision?

Defendant: Yes

Gunson: Further, do you realize that this Court will not make any decision regarding probation and sentence until after it has read and considered the report and recommendation that will be prepared and submitted to it by the Probation Department? And after it has heard the argument of your attorney and the argument of the prosecutor; --

Defendant: Yes

Gunson: -- do you understand that? Mr Polanski, do you understand that at the time of probation and sentencing, the prosecutor may argue that you should be sentenced to State Prison or be incarcerated in the County Jail?

Defendant: Yes

Then what's the incentive to accept a plea bargain -- unless the crime you are pleading down to has a way smaller penalty?

Interestingly, in the 1970s the attorney-general of Alaska forbade prosecutors from offering plea bargains. It had almost no effect on the rate of guilty pleas.