"Rape Rape"

[NeoFauve]

Other things to consider:
In February 2009 Samantha Geimer filed to have the charges against Polanski dismissed from court, saying that decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor's focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family.

Well, it's tough toenails for her, I guess.
Maybe the crime(s) were actually committed against her then, but she needs to understand that this is happening to us . . . now.
We need this, preferably televised.

[pc]

Solid point Neo. FWIW though, the law in nearly every state is that once a case is filed (or at some time very shortly after that) it becomes the "property" of the state. In other words, the victim loses the legal standing to change the course of the case or dismiss it.

This was done as a counter-attack on the domestic violence cycle, or more basically, to avoid the possibility that the abuser/perpetrator could threaten/cajole/influence the victim to drop the charges. By removing the power to dismiss from the victim, the perpetrator loses another level of control.

In practice of course this isn't ideal--when the victim is also your star witness, their lack of cooperation tanks your case. However many major metropolitan prosecutor's offices (or district attorney's as so named in some states) receive significant grants from the federal government and certain private organizations to prosecute rapes and domestic violence charges even without the victim being fully cooperative.

It's sticky... Once you choose to do that, you are essentially forcing them (often with the assistance of the local sheriff's office) to come to court, and then treating them on the stand as a hostile witness--in effect victimizing the victim all over again. On the other hand, you can see why it's a good thing to try as well.

I digressed as usual, but my point was simply that she could file any thing she wanted to--she didn't have the power to dismiss anything or even the standing to ask.

[boobtube21]

You guys are getting worked up over something that was said on The View?

I take it you're not aware of the full scope of this...

I didn't even finish listening to Whoopi. She annoys me anyway. As Neo posted earlier, there's a petition being passed around asking for his release.

[NeoFauve]

Solid point Neo. FWIW though, the law in nearly every state is that once a case is filed (or at some time very shortly after that) it becomes the "property" of the state. In other words, the victim loses the legal standing to change the course of the case or dismiss it.

I realize that.
But it'd be a wonderful kindness to Samantha Geimer and her family if the media treated it that way.

And the state isn't supposed to be swayed in any direction by petitions, right?

[refin]

Signs of the times,fellas.
We have an administration that wants to clog up our judicial system trying prisoners of war in American courts---and the ACLU (Always Communist Loving Union) will be right there defending them.

[NeoFauve]

[pc]

And the state isn't supposed to be swayed in any direction by petitions, right?

Nope. But they have yet another black eye over this case. There was a documentary made about Polanski's life a few years back in which "the prosecutor" on his case made quite a statement about how crazy and inappropriate the judge in Polanski's case was. That prosecutor's statement was pretty much the sole basis for Polanski's defense attorneys filing a new motion for reconsideration of the sentencing.

The new judge who heard that motion agreed with the defense attorneys, but specifically said he wouldn't rule on the matter until Polanski appeared personally.

Then, rather recently, that same prosecutor went on record as saying that he lied. He indicated that he was basically just sitting in the courtroom where the documentary was being made and offered up a statement about the case that had absolutely no basis in fact at all. That prosecutor had not, in fact, ever been a part of the original Polanski prosecution and knew nothing about the inside facts of the case. He has now indicated that he basically just wanted to get some TV time and told the documentarians what he thought they wanted to hear.

Really, in the last 15 years, you can't turn around without some California prosecutor making a complete ass of themselves and their offices. It's probably no wonder (despite it being inappropriate) that they are trying to do whatever it is that the public sentiment dictates.

[Wilko]

This all happened very recently. February of this year, and it was all dug up by Polanski's people trying to get the case dismissed.

BTW, isn't sentencing the only time that the victims get to have a statement?

[boobtube21]

Who knows, maybe if he's exonerated Roman will start searching golf courses across the world for "rape-rapists" now that this guy's been locked up:

[elicross]

Sorry, Refin, but I have to concur with Neo...not just for the hyperbole but for the injection of gratuitous political grousing.

As for the victim, I'm sorry she's been put through so much unpleasantness since the crime. But if Polanski hadn't skipped the country, if he'd served his sentence -- for the crime he was willing to admit to, if not for his actual crime -- very few people would even know her name today. And it's never going to be put to bed until he does.

I think it'd be great if the press and the prosecution kept her out of it to the extent that they can, but justice needs to be served. I can't imagine that a girl considered too young to consent to sex would be considered old enough to decide whether or not charges should be pressed against the person who victimized her...and the fact that she's grown up now shouldn't change that.

[pc]

Signs of the times,fellas.
We have an administration that wants to clog up our judicial system trying prisoners of war in American courts---and the ACLU (Always Communist Loving Union) will be right there defending them.

I'm not a member of the ACLU nor have I ever worked for them. My Constitutional Law professor was the ACLU attorney who defended the Slokie nazis in that famous case, which I thought probably had to be fairly difficult for him as a Jewish man. But to him it was and always is about the Constitution. I don't want to come off as snippy or sarcastic Refin, but your acronym is fairly ridiculous because the nazi case is one their most famous (and obviously nazis are the opposite of communists), and also the "prisoners of war" you refer to are also clearly not communists. All your comment does is showcase that you're repeating someone else's soundbyte without understanding what you're saying.

The ACLU and I have often been on opposite sides of an issue. In the job I used to do where we frequently arrested people for the stashes of child porn images on their computers, we always seemed to trigger ACLU intervention based on the rights to privacy of the individuals in question. Obviously I was hell bent on nailing these people, but to not recognize their Constiutional rights would have been detrimental to my cases, and to curse the ACLU for doing their job is unintelligent at best.

The ACLU stands up for what's written in The Constitution but it is NOT a government agency. It has nothing to do with the Obama administration or any previous administration. Indeed, the ACLU is taking daily potshots at the Obama administration for its decisions in the detainee issue. More to the point, the ACLU is not involved in the Polanski case and (I'm going to hazard a guess) will not be. The ACLU's task is to keep the government from exceeding the authority granted to it in the U.S. Constitution, whether the victims of said excess are sweet, little old ladies from Maine or the people we love to hate--child porn collectors, nazis, Muslims... The unclean? The unloved?

It wasn't that long ago that a musician with long hippie-hair in a pony tail would be just crying out for some intervention from cops in the deep south, Refin. Hell boy, I can just look at you and know you got some weed on you. Get the fuck out the car and put your hands on the roof while I search you. Don't pull away from me. Are you resisting me?.

"There but for the Grace..." my friend.

[pc]

This all happened very recently. February of this year, and it was all dug up by Polanski's people trying to get the case dismissed.

BTW, isn't sentencing the only time that the victims get to have a statement?

It was quite recent, yes. But the "documentary" was presented as just that, an "unbiased" look at the life of this brilliant director and tortured soul, etc. (It focused heavily on the Tate murder as well). It was quite clearly put together by those hoping to get public sentiment on his side though. That this dumbass prosecutor opened his mouth at all when he didn't have the background or the authority to speak on his case was, as I said, another black eye for media-based prosecutions in Cali.

And no, Victim's Rights laws allow for a victim to make a statement at any phase of a proceeding as it may apply to pretrial bond, pretrial orders (such as stay-away orders, etc.) and continued incarceration while the accused awaits trial. The so called "Victim Impact" statement is intended for the sentencing phase. FWIW, there were no such laws on the books at the time this offense was committed. I'm not sure that necessarily limits or expands what they could allow the victim to do here.

[zenland]

"but justice needs to be served" I agree. It's not about the victim. It's about the perp.

Hi folks. Been a while since I last posted so....

[refin]

Well.sometimes we speak without thinking first,and we can type responses in a thread and go on to something else.
I didn't mean my ACLU comment to be inflammatory,sorry.....I don't like alot of stuff they represent,but I see it was off topic and unnecessary....

[Kap'n]

Obviously, there is absolutely nothing that would have me not think he needs to have his balls chopped off and stuffed down his throat.

OTOH, in a molecular level defense of the man, having your pregnant wife being killed in your home by the Manson Family while you're out of town might tend to make you a little screwed up.

[elicross]

I think that's absolutely true, and I feel for him in that respect. But I don't see how that tragedy could possibly manifest itself as an uncontrollable compulsion to drug and anally rape underage girls -- so I can't really see that working as a defense on any level, molecular or otherwise.

[Kap'n]

I think that's absolutely true, and I feel for him in that respect. But I don't see how that tragedy could possibly manifest itself as an uncontrollable compulsion to drug and anally rape underage girls -- so I can't really see that working as a defense on any level, molecular or otherwise.

Not an excuse, absolutely. But I doubt it would have happened otherwise. Charlie wanted to be a catalyst for change, and I guess he got his wish.

Asshole.

[NeoFauve]

Not long after he skipped continent he became involved with Nastasia Kinski.
She was 15 at the time.

[Uyasgali]

Proves that the ability to act has nothing to do with intelligence. Even if you have no children of your own, how could anyone condone that kind of behavior.

When did she get the ability to act?

[Doc W]

Today in the National Post (Canada), I read that the French Minister of Culture, Frederic Mitterand, said that if the cultural world did not come to the defense of Roman Polanski, "it would mean there is no culture in our country." He means France, not French Canada, thankfully.

Mitterand also has some fascinating tastes. In a book he wrote in 2005, he said "I got into the habit of paying for boys...All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excited me enormously... the abundance of very attractive and immediately available young boys put me in a state of desire."

I didn't make that up and I can tell you that if I was up on the same charges as Polanski, I sure as hell would not want this guy speaking out on my behalf.

This just gets nuttier by the day.

[elicross]

Yeah, that sounds like a serious "Please get off my side" case there. Jeezis. Is he related to former President Francois?

[rudutch]

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

we need to amend the law so hollywood / moviestars / sports figures / etc / types can get away with this sort of thing

[elicross]

In practice, seems like they already do pretty often.

[Doc W]

Yeah, that sounds like a serious "Please get off my side" case there. Jeezis. Is he related to former President Francois?

I dunno. Mitterrand is not an unusual name in France, I think.