This may not be a popular opinion, but why is CA so insistent on getting Polanski??

[luvmy3]

At what financial cost?

I don't believe that makes any difference.

 

[RadioNate]

He RAPED a child. RAPED her! Do you people really think not being allowed in the US is a punishment? As is France is some 3rd world hell hole?

Her testmony has been published. Read what he did to her in detail.

While he pled guilty (no trial people!) to basically statutory charges this wasn't that at all.

It is sick the support this child rapest has. He was old enough to be her father.

This is ALL Polanski. Fine him for the costs. He's rich & fled sentencing.

 

[DawnCt1]

Because he's a rapist pig who used his money and influence to flee the country and avoid paying for his crimes?

Sounds right to me. In fact, let me add "pedophile rapist pig". Just for a little enhancement.

 

[LuvOrlando]

In answer to the OP's original question, it's because he is a perverted child abusing scofflaw who is better known for getting away with child abuse then anything else. Personally, I would love to see him in chains. Nothing gets under my skin more than the rich &/or pulling garbage like this, it's vile. I'd mention another celebrity who escaped to France under accusations of child abuse but one disgusting person is already too much for me to think about at any given time.. they all make me sick but the rich ones who buy their way out of trouble are even more offensive because of the way the world treats them. Since when can justice be bought or sold, or even become too expensive.. we're quite a mess of a culture if we are ok with doing a cold corporate cost analysis on the enforcement of our laws.

No-one should be untouchable.

 

[tvguy]

If we applied that logic, we wouldn't go after anyone who commits a crime and leaves the country.

I am not aware of any felony case where California has decided it wasn't worth the money to extradict the suspect. That certainly would be a dangerous path, something I hope our society NEVER considers Most of the secondary Nazi war criminals that chase around the world were probably not worth the expense.
And in cases such as Polanski's...where the suspect is weathy, they normally are ordered to make restitituion to the state, so the state is out nothing in the long run.
He committed rape. He plead guilty to rape. He fled. There is a price to be paid for that.

 

[undertheradar]

I don't believe that makes any difference.

Society has to consider cost. As an example: Do you spend $1000.00 to prosecute the theft of a $.05 piece of gum? Our system couldn't support doing so. The case in question was plea bargained out decades ago. Due to the presiding judge waivering on honoring the deal, the plea bargain fell through and Polanski fled the country. Now, over 3 decades later, the victim wants nothing to do with the case and the system could solve it by sentencing Polanski to time served, pay a fine and closing the case. Wouldn't make for much of a "Hollywood" type ending, now would it?

 

[mhsjax]

Last time I checked Rape was against the law, I didn't think it was up the the victim weather or not the person was prosecuted. Maybe I am wrong. But the creep need to be tried.

 

[luvmy3]

Society has to consider cost. As an example: Do you spend $1000.00 to prosecute the theft of a $.05 piece of gum? Our system couldn't support doing so. The case in question was plea bargained out decades ago. Due to the presiding judge waivering on honoring the deal, the plea bargain fell through and Polanski fled the country. Now, over 3 decades later, the victim wants nothing to do with the case and the system could solve it by sentencing Polanski to time served, pay a fine and closing the case. Wouldn't make for much of a "Hollywood" type ending, now would it?

How much time did he already serve?

 

[Tinkermommy]

Society has to consider cost. As an example: Do you spend $1000.00 to prosecute the theft of a $.05 piece of gum? Our system couldn't support doing so. The case in question was plea bargained out decades ago. Due to the presiding judge waivering on honoring the deal, the plea bargain fell through and Polanski fled the country. Now, over 3 decades later, the victim wants nothing to do with the case and the system could solve it by sentencing Polanski to time served, pay a fine and closing the case. Wouldn't make for much of a "Hollywood" type ending, now would it?

That example is ludicrous. You cannot compare petty theft to the rape of a child.

Your solution would not serve justice at all. If that was the case, then everyone could just jump the border and wait it out or pay a fine.

I don't want to live in a society where a horrible violent crime against a child can be paid off.

As for the victim, it's really not about her wishes. When people are prosecuted for crimes it is the State vs. the defendant not the victim vs. the defendant.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

I don't care about the costs involved. He can pay them all.

He needs to pay for his crimes.

Frankly, it's sickening how people are just saying to forget it. Forget that he drugged and raped a child. I really don't think that if it was your child, that you (in general) would be saying to forget it.

 

[Heidict]

Ok, let's say he is extradited. He comes home and has to go to trial.

after 30+ years, finally a trial. The witnesses are all 30+ years older. The defense attorney is going to attack the accuracy of their memory. Let's also remember he is a rich celebrity. We all know how the trials of rich celebrities turn out.

If Robert Blake was found not guilty...COME ON! So now, here is Polanski back in the US after 30+ years to face the music. Chances are very good he will be found...NOT guilty. So now what? He will never be charged for that crime again and now he is free to live in the US. To have access to OUR children.

I don't believe he would be found guilty. What, with all the support he has from the Hollywood community? It will be a circus. If there was a chance he would go to prison, I say drag him back. But that's is not going to happen, and as long as he is a fugitive, is cannot come back here.

There would not be a trail, at least not for the original charge. He plead guilty and just had to go in for sentencing. He got scared and ran. I think now all they have to do is sentence him for the original charge, plus the extra for running.

Of course, I could be totally wrong on this. Anyone know for sure?

In regards to bringing him back to a bankrupt state. We can't use the states finances as a deciding factor on this. That is just giving criminals permission to break the law and then run out of state before they would have to face justice.

He is a child molester and needs to be punished for what he did. I feel for the victim and due to the publicity of this whole mess, her face and name are being drug back into the spotlight, however, she has no say in this. It is in the states hands and not hers. To throw it away and say "who cares" sends a horrible message to victims of rape, to criminals and to the citizens of California.

 

[AshleyW]

Society has to consider cost. As an example: Do you spend $1000.00 to prosecute the theft of a $.05 piece of gum? Our system couldn't support doing so. The case in question was plea bargained out decades ago. Due to the presiding judge waivering on honoring the deal, the plea bargain fell through and Polanski fled the country. Now, over 3 decades later, the victim wants nothing to do with the case and the system could solve it by sentencing Polanski to time served, pay a fine and closing the case. Wouldn't make for much of a "Hollywood" type ending, now would it?

He spent 42 days in jail for a psychiatric evaluation, prior to when he was supposed to be actually sentenced. You really think that 42 days getting a psych eval and a fine is a just punishment for the rape of a child? That's sickening.

 

[RadioNate]

Society has to consider cost. As an example: Do you spend $1000.00 to prosecute the theft of a $.05 piece of gum? Our system couldn't support doing so. The case in question was plea bargained out decades ago. Due to the presiding judge waivering on honoring the deal, the plea bargain fell through and Polanski fled the country. Now, over 3 decades later, the victim wants nothing to do with the case and the system could solve it by sentencing Polanski to time served, pay a fine and closing the case. Wouldn't make for much of a "Hollywood" type ending, now would it?

We don't know if the judge was going to waiver on the agreed sentence or not. Polanski THOUGHT the judge was going to but that wasn't given. He didn't stick around to find out either way. The judge never got the oppertunity to sentence so we don't know if the plea deal would have been honored or not.

Have you read her testimony? She was 13. If someome did that to YOUR 13 year old daughter wouldn't you want them to serve more than 42 days and then live out a life of luxury in France.

He jumped bail and fled the country. But that's ok. It's been 30 years. I mean really, what's one guilty plea to child rape? He's a famous director. He's an ARTIST. He's a genius! His wife was bruitually murdered. That makes it all ok to drug and rape and sodomize a 13 year old girl. He was only 30 years older than her. Using power, influence and drugs to have sex with a minor...it was wild times!

Did I get them all? All the arguements for his freedom?

VOMIT! Seriously. The guy should be rotting in jail and have someone do to him what he did to that girl.

 

[undertheradar]

No, I don't. The entire case was plea bargained and set to be concluded when the presiding judge derailed the plea bargain. Under the plea bargain negotiated by the Victim's attorney, Polanski was to plea to the lesser charge (the CA equivalent of statutory rape) and have 5 original charges dropped. The judge received probation report and psych. evaluation that indicated no jail time. The judge sentenced Polanski to 90 days psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison. Polanski was released after 42 days. He fled the country the very next day, first going to England and then on to France.

The victim has published numerous requests for the charges to be dropped. She has received some paymant from Polanski to settle a civil suit. It is unknown if he ever paid the victim the entire amount agreed upon.

If the victim is not wanting to participate anymore, why continue the case?

 

[rie'smom]

A pedophile cannot be cured. So what if his victim wants the case dropped. If he's free to molest another child, that's ok?

 

[undertheradar]

He spent 42 days in jail for a psychiatric evaluation, prior to when he was supposed to be actually sentenced. You really think that 42 days getting a psych eval and a fine is a just punishment for the rape of a child? That's sickening.

If the victim wants the case dropped, why should society be going against her wishes? I never said it was a fair punishment, it is a cost effective way of concluding a 33 year old case with an uncooperative victim.

 

[MickeySP]

SO it would have been cheaper to leave Jaycee Duggard where she was then? Ca nows has to pay for prosecution & plus the civil fee, why not just release him & send her back, way cheaper in the long run.

Should we have a sliding scale & an actuary to decide the feasibility of pursuing criminals?

 

[merryweather20]

No, I don't. The entire case was plea bargained and set to be concluded when the presiding judge derailed the plea bargain. Under the plea bargain negotiated by the Victim's attorney, Polanski was to plea to the lesser charge (the CA equivalent of statutory rape) and have 5 original charges dropped. The judge received probation report and psych. evaluation that indicated no jail time. The judge sentenced Polanski to 90 days psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison. Polanski was released after 42 days. He fled the country the very next day, first going to England and then on to France.

The victim has published numerous requests for the charges to be dropped. She has received some paymant from Polanski to settle a civil suit. It is unknown if he ever paid the victim the entire amount agreed upon.

If the victim is not wanting to participate anymore, why continue the case?

The victim in this case is the State of California.

Didn't the judge "derail" the plea bargain because he had the authority to do so? This wasn't something where they were unfairly picking on Polanski, the judge had to be on board with the sentencing and he decided he was not.

Even if he were wronged fleeing the country was obviously the wrong thing to do.

 

[EMom]

Roman Polanski learned a valuable lessone when he fled decades ago. He learned that if you are rich, famous and "creative" you can get a free pass to drug and rape little girls, especially if you play the pity card by frequently pointing out that your pretty wife was murdered by a group of crazies. (As if that gives you the right to rape little girls at will as some sort of cosmic balancing act. ) And what is truly disturbing is how many in the entertainment community (then and now) fully support him and want him to be let alone.

After all, he is such a creative genius, they proclaim. The logic seems to be that if a plumber or ditch digger had drugged and raped a little girl, then THAT filth should have been put away for YEARS......But if someone who is a GIFT to the cinema does the exact same thing, well, we should look the other way. Because after all, shouldn't we all be in such awe of his brilliance that a little harmless child raping can be seen for the MISunderstanding it was?

Puh-leeze! Polanski had a thing for little girls back then and he's never stopped. He's just gotten smarter at finding parents who won't kick up a stink when he takes up with their daughters who have just hit puberty. Pedophile then, pedophile today. UNPUNISHED, UNREPENANT PEDOPHILE who is today laughing as he saunters through Switzerland, looking for a fresh young thing.

I'm not one of those people who boycotts movies because I disagree with an actor's politics. The only movies I avoided were Polanski's and Woody Allen's. Both for similar reasons. But lately my list of "won't see" movies is growing due to the number of actors/directors who are supporting Polanski. If they are so pro-pedophile and so anti-child protection, that tells me all I need to know about them. Scum.

 

[AshleyW]

No, I don't. The entire case was plea bargained and set to be concluded when the presiding judge derailed the plea bargain. Under the plea bargain negotiated by the Victim's attorney, Polanski was to plea to the lesser charge (the CA equivalent of statutory rape) and have 5 original charges dropped. The judge received probation report and psych. evaluation that indicated no jail time. The judge sentenced Polanski to 90 days psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison. Polanski was released after 42 days. He fled the country the very next day, first going to England and then on to France.

The victim has published numerous requests for the charges to be dropped. She has received some paymant from Polanski to settle a civil suit. It is unknown if he ever paid the victim the entire amount agreed upon.

If the victim is not wanting to participate anymore, why continue the case?

The case needs to continue because he was never sentenced! He fled like a coward before he could be punished for his crime. It doesn't matter if the victim doesn't want to participate - she doesn't have to! There is nothing left for her to be involved in. The only thing that is left is for Polanski to do his jail time. She wants this all to be over with - and I understand that. But as long as he stays in Switzerland & France like a coward, it won't be over. It won't be over until he either a) dies in Switzerland/France or b) gets extradited to serve his time.