"Cooley has called that punishment "[a] very, very, very lenient sentence" that "would never be achievable under today's laws."

Look I hate to say anything that might make cause with Polanski, but they can't sentence him for his sex crime under the terms of today's laws; you have to go back to 1978. (Except for the whole fugitive thing).

You may be right about the sentencing rules. I suspect that giving him a hard 3 year term in the general population of a prison will "toughen him up" so that in the future he might have a tad more respect for children - or at least a fear of getting "close" to them. I would contribute to a fund to provide Viagra to the general population of whatever prison he inhabits.

You really think 75 year old men are capable of dramatic personal growth and change? What kind of fruit-loops do you have for grandfathers?

Your ex-post facto point is interesting - except that I'm not sure it applies to a convicted fugitive. Remember he was already convicted, and it was his choice to take the gamble that sentencing guidelines would get more lenient

Now that would be an interesting SCOTUS case, but meanwhile Polanski gets to do what he should have done in the first place. Sit in jail while his appeal on judicial misconduct goes forward.

bsharp--don't care whether Polanski's behavior since would get him canonized.

Point I'm trying to make is that you can't punish someone for something that was not illegal at the time (or impose a harsher penalty than was allowed at the time). Otherwise, we'd be living in a world paranoid about future changes in laws affecting current actions. Ex post facto. It's explicitly in the Constitution...perhaps unfortunately in this case.

Degs, you can still get the book thrown at you for fleeing (and since he was in flight until a fortnight ago we can use current fugitive laws against him), but for the original conviction, I'm pretty sure 1978 laws apply, since the crime was committed in 1978.

That may be the case, wouldn't it be great if we could ask Roman Polanski in 1978 what the maximum sentence was for the felony he pleaded guilty to.

Oh wait, the DA did just that during the plea hearing, lets look at the transcript.

<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 made 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

1978 LAWs apply, but he's already been convicted based on those laws. The question is whether more recent SENTENCING GUIDELINES would be applicable.

Sentencing Guidelines are put in place by law, but its not clear the guidelines themselves are Ex Post Facto. Remember Polanski plead guilty on the facts, not "to the likely penalty". And so the facts and the crime remain the same. But its not clear to me that the "prevailing sentencing POLICY" has to be applied.

That difference is the interesting part.

Two things:

1) I think the "misconduct issue" is out the window. The DA has specifically said he LIED about the supposed misconduct in his interview in the movie. From the latest from that DA, there was no misconduct.

2) The max sentence in 1978 for what he pleaded to was 20 years. So, even if they followed guidelines then, he could effectively get a life sentence. A quick internet search seems to show that the max penalty NOW for "illegal sex with a minor" is 4 years.

You seem knowledgeable about this area. Could you explain the difference between statutory rape and "illegal sex with a minor"?

Seems to me statutory rape is illegal sex with a minor. It doesn't require force to be present to be guilty, right? Also there's the issue of providing illegal drugs and alcohol to a minor and flight to avoid justice?

With any justice at all that skinny little bastard will get five or more hard years in a state prison and unlike Bernie, I doubt he'll win his first prison fight.

My guess is that its Stat Rape of the adult KNOWS its a minor, and "illegal sex" if they don't

I don't think that's the distinction Degs. From what I've read the girl's age was well known by Poliaski. It's possible they let him plead to a lesser offense but that would be pretty disingenuous. But, what's new?

Pleading down lets them get the conviction without the girl's testimony

Wasn't there an Explainer column on the terminology various states use for what is commonly called statutory rape (a term, as I recall the column, which is seldom found in the various states' statutes)? I don't think there's any difference between "statutory rape" and "illegal sex with a minor."

Statutory rape is NOT rape. If an act of "stat rape" actually were rape, it seems rather obvious that the word statutory would NOT be preceding the word rape. It would be called RAPE and nothing else. No qualifications. "Statutory rape" is nothing more than an Orwellian word game so that you can call people that you don't like things you like even less. There's a reason for the word "statutory". It's certainly not called "dictionary rape".

Also, as The Explainer explained, California does not use the term statutory rape:

What's "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse"? And other questions from the Explainer's
Roman Polanski roundup.
<link>
By Brian Palmer Posted Monday, Sept. 28, 2009, at 7:18 PM ET

(The explainer links to a blank page, so I don't know quite what it is called today; nor what it was called at the time, if there's any difference. But it was probably "unlawful sexual intercourse". So he didn't commit rape, or proving rape was perhaps unnecessary because it was already consumed by performing and proving "usi"? Or what?)

I don't know if what Polanski did was rape-rape. I really like several of his movies, while I can curb my enthusiasm for some of the others. The vampire one bored me silly.

completed that lesser sentence.

Polanski did not stick around, and thus should be tried under the new law.