He DRUGGED and SODOMIZED a thirteen year old girl.

Good going DA! Make him do his time.

You clearly mean the current DA because the DA's office at the time decide this rape was only a statutory rape and agreed to accept a plea.

The current DA will not decide if he does time or not but instead a judge unless they decide to have a trial. Now a trial, 30 years later would be wild, but this case does have some complex legal questions, like the original's judges misconduct.

Yes, Polanski raped that girl and he could of gone to trial for that back then but what we have now isn't a clear cut case for the state.

Jazzguitarman is right on this one, I'm afraid. I personally think Polanski is guilty of "rape-rape," and I hope the judge sets aside the plea deal and he gets tried on that charge. But after thirty years, it won't be easy to make it stick, and I could understand the prosecutor deciding not to push it.

Of course, there's also the charge of "failing to appear," also known as "fleeing the country and thumbing his nose at us from Europe for thirty years." They've got him cold there, and I expect the prosecutor will play hardball on that one if nothing else. The justice system takes a pretty dim view of that kind of thing.

jazzguitarman:

You clearly mean the current DA because the DA's office at the time decide this rape was only a statutory rape and agreed to accept a plea.

The current DA will not decide if he does time or not but instead a judge unless they decide to have a trial. Now a trial, 30 years later would be wild, but this case does have some complex legal questions, like the original's judges misconduct.

Yes, Polanski raped that girl and he could of gone to trial for that back then but what we have now isn't a clear cut case for the state.

Let me explain a little something in regard to plea bargains. It does not mean that the DA's office decided that it was not a rape or that it was only a statutory rape. Most of the time a plea means that the DA's office is not sure that they have enough evidence of the actual charges to get a conviction in court so they will allow the person to plea down to a lesser charge to make sure that they do get some form of punishment for their crime. Now the person can refuse to take a plea and take their chance in court and some do and some win and some lose. In taking a plea a person admits that they are guilty of something and it doesn't necessarily mean that anyone believes that they are only guilty of that charge.

Now you have to remember that the DA has to prove the case beyond a "reasonable doubt", and from some of the posts that I have seen on here, the fact that she willingly went with him, willingly took the drugs, willingly took off her clothes and that she supposedly wasn't a virgin even though she said no numerous times, would cast some "reasonable doubt" even at this time. At the time of the rape the defense attorney would have ripped her apart for her promiscuous ways and that would have cast "reasonable doubt" with many people and there was a good chance that he would have got off with nothing.

Dausuul:

Jazzguitarman is right on this one, I'm afraid. I personally think Polanski is guilty of "rape-rape," and I hope the judge sets aside the plea deal and he gets tried on that charge. But after thirty years, it won't be easy to make it stick, and I could understand the prosecutor deciding not to push it.

Of course, there's also the charge of "failing to appear," also known as "fleeing the country and thumbing his nose at us from Europe for thirty years." They've got him cold there, and I expect the prosecutor will play hardball on that one if nothing else. The justice system takes a pretty dim view of that kind of thing.

if he ends up doing time, that's good enough.

the fact that she willingly went with him, willingly took the drugs, willingly took off her clothes and that she supposedly wasn't a virgin even though she said no numerous times, would cast some "reasonable doubt" even at this time.

Yea, I get it. She asked for it. Willingly, and it only took her thirteen short years to scheme the downfall of a great man.

one thing I do know without a reasonable doubt is that your an imbecile disguised as a "let me explain something to you". Geez, and it only took you two paragraphs to convince me.

trying to give donnamp the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he wasn't trying to justify Polansky's behavior but only demonstrate how he thinks it would play out in court.

He is wrong, however. It wouldn't matter if the 13 year old girl was a crack ho having anal sex every night. Legal age of consent is never as low as 13. If Polansky had been a horny young drunk 18 year old and thought she was 17 I might almost understand a bit of leniency. This was a 40's something guy who knew her age and had a history and future of sexual contact with young teens.

flrdalyn:

the fact that she willingly went with him, willingly took the drugs, willingly took off her clothes and that she supposedly wasn't a virgin even though she said no numerous times, would cast some "reasonable doubt" even at this time.

Yea, I get it. She asked for it. Willingly, and it only took her thirteen short years to scheme the downfall of a great man.

one thing I do know without a reasonable doubt is that your an imbecile disguised as a "let me explain something to you". Geez, and it only took you two paragraphs to convince me.

Actually it seems like you may be the imbecile. Maybe you should have read the whole post instead of just taking the last paragraph out of context or maybe you have some problems with actual reading comprehension. I was replying to the post by Jazz where he claims that the DA did not consider it rape because he pled it down since he doesn't seem to understand what a plea deal is about. I saw what a defense attorney did to a rape victim in the 70's and I saw how some of the people in the jury believed that she deserved it. Where did I say in that post that "I" felt that she deserved it? I in no way agree that she deserved it or that the way the defense attorneys used to treat rape victims was right. Unfortunately it was a travesty that was allowed to happen at that time and as I said that is a possible reason as to why the DA never took it to trial and pled it down to something else.

bsharporflat

Thank you for basically understanding what I wrote but I do have to say after having witnessed a rape trial first hand in the 70's how stupid some people on juries can be and how convincing that a defense attorney can be that he may not have been able to get a rape conviction. He may have been able to get statutory rape but if you are going for rape and they acquit then you have no recourse to try him again. At least with the plea you know that you definitely have him for something. I was actually appalled at how the defense attorney treated the victim like she deserved what she got and how his client was basically an angel. (besides I am a she).

Your wrong. They took the plea bargain because they knew that he had a better chance of a lighter sentence with the judge than with a jury of his peers. He made a mistake by going overseas and thumbing his nose at the judge, and showing his contempt for the court by his arrogant behavior. He had no remorse, and unfortunately didn't fake that he did.

When the reality hit him that he could be facing up to twenty years in jail, he made the wise move to not come back. He should have kept it that way, and stayed where they have a much more "mature" attitude to the sort of behavior he exhibited with a child. I don't think that anyone was paying him much mind until his lawyers again brought him to the courts attention. They had no choice but to pursue him, and his lawyers should have warned him unless he was too arrogant once again, to head the warning signs.