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

[Poppinsme]

I'm pretty stunned over the number of people who are actually advocating that a child rapist be let off the hook because, as far as i can tell, #1, it only happened once so what's the harm and #2, it's an inconvenient expense so lets cut our losses.

I don't think a smiley exists for what's going though my head so let me just say that any kid subjected to violence lives a lifelong sentence. My DH mistakenly woke me up this morning at 5:45 when he was going to work. Unfortunately, my head doesn't live in a Swiss chalet and the moment the world quiets down I'm back as a little kid stuck in whatever horror my mind decides to leave me and it's got quite a number of memories to choose from. This has been my entire life. When I was really young I drank but eventually I realized chemicals just made me more likely to make mistakes so I found other coping mechanisms like TV, books, books on tape anything. Today I tried to sleep but my mind kept bringing me places i didn't want to be tossed and i turned and I cried and then I get up and watched something on Netflix so i can quiet my head. Anytime I'm alone can bring tears because when my head is left to wander it always finds sad places to be, doing laundry or driving for a long road trip can be agonizing. Anyone who thinks that woman has gotten over what she endured at 13 is 100% out of their minds, she's just trying to quiet it down which is the best that can be hoped for. I get why the victim might want it to go away but the idea that anyone else out there isn't enraged is mind numbing to me. YOU are a part of the problem and nothing anyone can say will ever change my mind about that. Angry doesn't even begin to cover how I feel about some of the posts here.

PS- I'm not saying we should go to war over it. I am saying that claiming it's no big deal is really messed up.

To LuvOrlando,
How interesting.
I also hate to be alone as my mind starts to wander back in time.
I have many memories placed behind locked, chained, cemented, welded shut doors. Never to be looked at or relived. I can sadly never, ever relive those horrible things.
When I was younger I went to a therapist who wanted me to "talk" about the past and open up. When I tried what I became was a crying wreck. Its just to damn painful. I don't want to look back at a 35 year old male raping me. And thats OK and healthy for me. My opinion only. Heck I didn't tell my parents until my 30s. I was ashamed. But not anymore as I did nothing wrong.
Hugs,
Poppinsme

 

[cteddiesgirl]

I'm pretty stunned over the number of people who are actually advocating that a child rapist be let off the hook because, as far as i can tell, #1, it only happened once so what's the harm and #2, it's an inconvenient expense so lets cut our losses.

I don't think a smiley exists for what's going though my head so let me just say that any kid subjected to violence lives a lifelong sentence. My DH mistakenly woke me up this morning at 5:45 when he was going to work. Unfortunately, my head doesn't live in a Swiss chalet and the moment the world quiets down I'm back as a little kid stuck in whatever horror my mind decides to leave me and it's got quite a number of memories to choose from. This has been my entire life. When I was really young I drank but eventually I realized chemicals just made me more likely to make mistakes so I found other coping mechanisms like TV, books, books on tape anything. Today I tried to sleep but my mind kept bringing me places i didn't want to be tossed and i turned and I cried and then I get up and watched something on Netflix so i can quiet my head. Anytime I'm alone can bring tears because when my head is left to wander it always finds sad places to be, doing laundry or driving for a long road trip can be agonizing. Anyone who thinks that woman has gotten over what she endured at 13 is 100% out of their minds, she's just trying to quiet it down which is the best that can be hoped for. I get why the victim might want it to go away but the idea that anyone else out there isn't enraged is mind numbing to me. YOU are a part of the problem and nothing anyone can say will ever change my mind about that. Angry doesn't even begin to cover how I feel about some of the posts here.

PS- I'm not saying we should go to war over it. I am saying that claiming it's no big deal is really messed up.

 

[krcit]

I'm pretty stunned over the number of people who are actually advocating that a child rapist be let off the hook because, as far as i can tell, #1, it only happened once so what's the harm and #2, it's an inconvenient expense so lets cut our losses.

I don't think a smiley exists for what's going though my head so let me just say that any kid subjected to violence lives a lifelong sentence. My DH mistakenly woke me up this morning at 5:45 when he was going to work. Unfortunately, my head doesn't live in a Swiss chalet and the moment the world quiets down I'm back as a little kid stuck in whatever horror my mind decides to leave me and it's got quite a number of memories to choose from. This has been my entire life. When I was really young I drank but eventually I realized chemicals just made me more likely to make mistakes so I found other coping mechanisms like TV, books, books on tape anything. Today I tried to sleep but my mind kept bringing me places i didn't want to be tossed and i turned and I cried and then I get up and watched something on Netflix so i can quiet my head. Anytime I'm alone can bring tears because when my head is left to wander it always finds sad places to be, doing laundry or driving for a long road trip can be agonizing. Anyone who thinks that woman has gotten over what she endured at 13 is 100% out of their minds, she's just trying to quiet it down which is the best that can be hoped for. I get why the victim might want it to go away but the idea that anyone else out there isn't enraged is mind numbing to me. YOU are a part of the problem and nothing anyone can say will ever change my mind about that. Angry doesn't even begin to cover how I feel about some of the posts here.

PS- I'm not saying we should go to war over it. I am saying that claiming it's no big deal is really messed up.

I agree with you. By some of these posters logig, John List should've been left alone because he didn't murder anyone else for at least 30 years after he slaughtered his entire family

Polanski raped a child. Drugged and raped her, although according to Whoopi Goldberg is wasn't 'rape rape' He should stand trial for his crime. Hollywood makes me sick.....give him astanding ovation at the Oscars a few years ago, fall all over themselves to make movies with Woody Allen It's all good in LaLa land.

 

[brerrabbit]

While I agree as a rapist he should be punished my understanding is that the crime he is being sought for is not the rape. He plead guilty to a lesser charge and fleed the country prior to sentencing. So basically the victim saying let it be is not relevant because the "crime" is failing to appear in court. At this point it is all mute because the Swiss won't return him to the US. Basically I look at it as because of his money, his fame, and his subsiquint work people say let it be. Well is that only applicable to people with money? Can anyone flee a crime when they are young and live a good life so as to be forgiven? Us and California law says he is a felon and the warrent for his arrest still exsists. Can you ask for certain laws to be overlooked? California did what they were supposed to do, they tried to extradite an individual for which an outstanding warrent exsisted. Something they should do in every case so that justice is equal to all, not just the rich.

 

[Pigeon]

. I am saying that claiming it's no big deal is really messed up.

I don't think it's "no big deal," nor do I think that most of the posters here think that either. I haven't heard anyone claiming that what he did was OK because he made some good films.

What I do think is that law enforcement does not have endlessly deep pockets. I'm sure that there are plenty of offenders who have done equivalent things or worse that could be apprehended with the money that has been poured down this particular well.

 

[Mermaid02]

While I agree as a rapist he should be punished my understanding is that the crime he is being sought for is not the rape. He plead guilty to a lesser charge and fleed the country prior to sentencing. So basically the victim saying let it be is not relevant because the "crime" is failing to appear in court. At this point it is all mute because the Swiss won't return him to the US. Basically I look at it as because of his money, his fame, and his subsiquint work people say let it be. Well is that only applicable to people with money? Can anyone flee a crime when they are young and live a good life so as to be forgiven? Us and California law says he is a felon and the warrent for his arrest still exsists. Can you ask for certain laws to be overlooked? California did what they were supposed to do, they tried to extradite an individual for which an outstanding warrent exsisted. Something they should do in every case so that justice is equal to all, not just the rich.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

I think it's sort of a ridiculous waste of tax dollars to go after this creep, too, given all the time that has passed and that the victim wants the case dropped.

With the amount of money that law enforcement has spent on this issue, they could have gone after a boatload of offenders. I can't help but believe that it's an ego thing for the prosecutor, and I'm sure there are many cold cases than never get another moment's though.

Do you think they have not gone after other offenders because they have gone after Polanski? If not, your post makes zero sense.

 

[sunnyday123]

What I don't understand is how Hollywood overlooks what he did. I don't care how "brilliant' his movie making skills are, he raped a 13 year old girl. HOW exactly do they justify that??

 

[Geoff_M]

For the record, a 2nd vicitim has come forward to say that Polanski sexually abused her at age 16 in Paris after he fled the US. The actress, Charlotte Lewis, who had a part in one of his films being shot at the time of the attack just came forward this May: http://freewomensblogs.com/2010/05/18/polanski-second-victim-steps-forward/

 

[FireDancer]

I think there is a big difference between thinking it is no big deal and continuing to spend tax payer dollars pursuing a person who is not going to be extradited. I don't agree with Switzerland's ruling but they are a sovereign nation who have the right to rule on matters of extradition. At some point continuing to throw money at the case when it appears as though nothing will come of it is just a waste. It isn't like we didn't attempt to have him extradited, we did but failed. In the end he can't step foot in our country so he can't hurt any more children in our jurisdiction. If he starts to molest Swiss children they do have a justice system over there and he is now their problem.

And I believe that child molesters are the lowest of all criminals, so it isn't that I don't think it is no big deal. I just think at some point you have to take the logical and fiscally responsible approach instead of the emotionally charged one that often seems like pandering to the press and public. I'd prefer justice but at some point you just have to accept that sometimes juries and courts make mistakes. In this case the Swiss courts made a mistake IMO but it is what it is.

What I don't understand is how Hollywood overlooks what he did. I don't care how "brilliant' his movie making skills are, he raped a 13 year old girl. HOW exactly do they justify that??

The same could be said about certain deified music entertainers. God only knows.

Do you think they have not gone after other offenders because they have gone after Polanski? If not, your post makes zero sense.

Contrary to how the government often acts there is a finite amount of money available for investigating and prosecuting crimes. Every cent spent on this case is a cent that can't be spent on another case.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

Contrary to how the government often acts there is a finite amount of money available for investigating and prosecuting crimes. Every cent spent on this case is a cent that can't be spent on another case.

Great, then show me. Show me a criminal that was let slip away because of the money spent on getting Polanski extradited. Otherwise, I simply don't believe it.

 

[FireDancer]

Great, then show me. Show me a criminal that was let slip away because of the money spent on getting Polanski extradited. Otherwise, I simply don't believe it.

No one can look at any case and say right here had the prosecution had the Polanski money they would have been able to spend more money and get a conviction. That isn't how it works.

It is just a fact that there is a finite amount of money. That money is going to be spent to investigate crimes and then prosecute the cases. Any money that has or will be spent on Polanski would have been used in another capacity had they not spent it on him. Any case where a corner was cut in regards to expense, an additional test wasn't ordered, an expert witness was not hired, or anything else could be a case the suffered because the money that would have been available for those things was already spent on Polanski. To point at a single case and say it is right here is impossible.

Besides, we are talking about stopping now so any case that would be hurt by not having the funds that were otherwise spent on continuing to try and get him extradited despite a court ruling we didn't meet our burden of proof would hurt future cases. Since I have no time machine or clairvoyance I really can't predict which cases those would be.

At some point the fiscally responsible thing to do is cut your losses, especially when you are spending other people's money.

As for people who are trying to equate accepting the Swiss court's ruling with ignoring all fugitives, that makes no sense. We didn't ignore him or say he left the country so why even bother. We went to the country where he is and presented our case. The court ruled against us. It is a pretty big leap to say accepting the ruling of a sovereign nation's court is the same as letting all fugitives who flee the US just live out their days without going after them.

Of course such leaps are often made here. I'm just glad it doesn't involve some hidden disability that occurs on the CB at ten times the national rate for a change.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

No one can look at any case and say right here had the prosecution had the Polanski money they would have been able to spend more money and get a conviction. That isn't how it works.

It is just a fact that there is a finite amount of money. That money is going to be spent to investigate crimes and then prosecute the cases. Any money that has or will be spent on Polanski would have been used in another capacity had they not spent it on him. Any case where a corner was cut in regards to expense, an additional test wasn't ordered, an expert witness was not hired, or anything else could be a case the suffered because the money that would have been available for those things was already spent on Polanski. To point at a single case and say it is right here is impossible.

Besides, we are talking about stopping now so any case that would be hurt by not having the funds that were otherwise spent on continuing to try and get him extradited despite a court ruling we didn't meet our burden of proof would hurt future cases. Since I have no time machine or clairvoyance I really can't predict which cases those would be.

At some point the fiscally responsible thing to do is cut your losses, especially when you are spending other people's money.

As for people who are trying to equate accepting the Swiss court's ruling with ignoring all fugitives, that makes no sense. We didn't ignore him or say he left the country so why even bother. We went to the country where he is and presented our case. The court ruled against us. It is a pretty big leap to say accepting the ruling of a sovereign nation's court is the same as letting all fugitives who flee the US just live out their days without going after them.

Of course such leaps are often made here. I'm just glad it doesn't involve some hidden disability that occurs on the CB at ten times the national rate for a change.

It is who's fact that there is a finite amount of money? I think the debt in the State of California puts lie to that. If there was a finite amount of money, there would be no debt. Yet, looking at both California's and the nation's deficits, it seems that money will always be spent on what people think is important. So, unless you can show a specific case that Polanski's case shorted, I could easily say that criminals all got away and tests were not done because of the cost of the governor's motorcade, which I could argue is more useless than going after a pedophile rapist. Or tree planting, or ten thousand other things. For me? A priority is bringing justice to someone who harmed a child, but I accept that not everyone will agree. But, the money argument falls as flat as a pancake. Maybe he will eventually go to a country that does care about pedophile rape. And I hope we get him then.

As for the rest of your post, it had nothing to do with anything I said, so I will just let it slowly leak into the background noise.

 

[FireDancer]

It is who's fact that there is a finite amount of money? I think the debt in the State of California puts lie to that. If there was a finite amount of money, there would be no debt. Yet, looking at both California's and the nation's deficits, it seems that money will always be spent on what people think is important. So, unless you can show a specific case that Polanski's case shorted, I could easily say that criminals all got away and tests were not done because of the cost of the governor's motorcade, which I could argue is more useless than going after a pedophile rapist. Or tree planting, or ten thousand other things. For me? A priority is bringing justice to someone who harmed a child, but I accept that not everyone will agree. But, the money argument falls as flat as a pancake. Maybe he will eventually go to a country that does care about pedophile rape. And I hope we get him then.

As for the rest of your post, it had nothing to do with anything I said, so I will just let it slowly leak into the background noise.

The thought that there isn't a finite amount of money is exactly the kind of thinking that is responsible for the national debt and much of California's problems. I would hope that money earmarked for the investigation and prosecution of crimes isn't being diverted to pay for trees or motorcades, but I really wouldn't be all the surprised either. But that is a whole different topic.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

The second half of the post didn't address your post, it addressed some of the leaps taken by others in this thread. I just didn't feel like going back and quoting them all.

Look, I'm not saying we should not have attempted to have him extradited, I think that was a good thing and we should have done it. I'm not saying I don't think he should rot in jail. I am merely saying that after we have spent the money attempting to extradite him and failed it isn't a wise allocation of funds to continue trying to extradite him over and over which will accomplish nothing other then wasting a lot of money for, more then likely, the exact same result. There is a big difference between not trying at all and accepting failure.

 

[sasywtch]

As a Californian, state worker who may be getting paid below CA minimum wage, I am for Polanski going to prison. It's the prosecutors job to continue, not the victims, not the public.

 

[Skywalker]

The same could be said about certain deified music entertainers. God only knows.

You mean "certain deified music entertainers" who were found Not Guilty?

It is your opinion if you disagree with the verdict, but only an opinion and people's opinions may vary.

In the Polanski case, there is no need for speculation or opinion, he is guilty, he did it and admitted it. It is just a fact. And he needs to serve his time.

Extradition was not invented for poor little Polanski. Criminals should not get an easy out by fleeing, nor they should get an out by waiting until the outrage dies down - they need to know that the long arm of the law WILL get them, or try its best, no matter how far or how long they run.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

As for people who are trying to equate accepting the Swiss court's ruling with ignoring all fugitives, that makes no sense. We didn't ignore him or say he left the country so why even bother. We went to the country where he is and presented our case. The court ruled against us. It is a pretty big leap to say accepting the ruling of a sovereign nation's court is the same as letting all fugitives who flee the US just live out their days without going after them.

Respectfully snipped.

To take it even further, the Swiss court ruled against extradition because the US wouldn't provide certain court documents. If the prosecution was so set on bringing Mr. Polanski home to serve his sentence why wouldn't they have provided the transcripts that the Swiss requested?

The more I read about this case the more I think someone really screwed up during the original plea deal, and, perhaps, those transcripts may show something that the California prosecutors would rather not admit to.

I agree with everyone who says he should be in jail. What he did is one of the worst crimes imaginable on this Earth, and running from it was 100% cowardly. To that end, though, the Swiss have made their decision...and, again, it's theirs to make. We don't have to like it, but, apparently things would have been different if the US had just provided some simple documents.

 

[Carly_Roach]

I don't think it's "no big deal," nor do I think that most of the posters here think that either. I haven't heard anyone claiming that what he did was OK because he made some good films.

Correct. I'm not excusing what he did 30 years ago nor am I calling it "no big deal". What I am saying is that it's been 30 years, the courts botched the 'justice' part of it and, what my biggest point is, has, and always will be, is this:

The victim is victimized, traumatized and has to relieve that dark time of her life every single time this case is brought up. My concern is for the victim of this incident. To repeatedly torture an innocent for the sake of satisfying some base personal need to express outrage is incredibly offensive to me. Those who behave in that manner demonstrate to me that they have no concern whatsoever for the victim - they just want blood to satisfy themselves.

The victim has strived for closure for 30 years. I fear she will never have true closure as long total strangers use this case for their own self-glorification purposes. To me, that alone is one of life's greatest sins: hurting, and continuing to hurt, another person so that you can advance your own selfish agenda.

I think there is a big difference between thinking it is no big deal and continuing to spend tax payer dollars pursuing a person who is not going to be extradited. I don't agree with Switzerland's ruling but they are a sovereign nation who have the right to rule on matters of extradition. At some point continuing to throw money at the case when it appears as though nothing will come of it is just a waste. It isn't like we didn't attempt to have him extradited, we did but failed. In the end he can't step foot in our country so he can't hurt any more children in our jurisdiction. If he starts to molest Swiss children they do have a justice system over there and he is now their problem.

Which is another point of mine. A bankrupt state has no business wasting money going after one single person who will likely not be "punished" in a manner that would satisfy any of the rabid bystanders.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

The AP article this morning about the US continuing their efforts contained this gem:

Cooley, who is the fifth district attorney to handle Polanski's case, accused the Swiss of exploiting a quirk of California law to set the director free and the decision was a "rejection of the competency of the California courts.

Sorry Mr. Cooley, but the OJ Simpson case showed everyone the true competency of the California courts.

Anyone wanting to read this morning's update on this can read the full article HERE.

 

[Heidict]

Which brings me right back to the fact that you care less about the well-being of that child, now woman, than you do about your own righteous indignation and sense of wanting to get even somehow for something that NEVER had anything to do with you in the first place. The victim relives the nightmare and suffers each and every time this 30 y/o event is brought up. But whenever that is mentioned, the argument shifts to, "But he broke a LAAAAAAW!!" gnash gnash gnash, light the torch, pick up the pitchfork, kill the ogre, lather, rinse, repeat.

Yeah, he did break the law, he admitted it. Remember that part? Are you not understanding this? Why don't you have a talk with your DH, the cop. Ask his views on criminals who admit their guilt then take off running before they are sentenced. Is he okay with just letting them go, never to be sentenced? Your response is the opposite of what I would expect from the wife of an LEO. I'm sure he would be proud though.

You post is condescending and insulting. You don't have any idea what people are feeling or what they have gone through in their life to bring them to that view. Your posts are so inflammatory that it seems like they are written for no other reason then to stir the pot. Why does this not surprise me?

Which brings back the issue that if the victim wants the case dropped, why is the district attorney still devoting money and resources to it? No matter what anyone here states, the only victim is the one who was raped! Society has not suffered any emotional or physical pain or loss.

Because the victim does not get to decide who the state will prosecute or let go. You really believe that the victim should decide something like this? You think a rape or molestation victim wants to get up in court and relive their experience for all the hear? I'm sure if it where up to them they would just rather that it all go away and that they be allowed to try their best to forget it and move on with their lives.

Thank goodness though that our justice system as a bit more sense then some of the people on this thread. If we allowed them to run it, there would be even more molesters and rapists running around on the streets, unprosecuted for previous crimes.

What I don't understand is how Hollywood overlooks what he did. I don't care how "brilliant' his movie making skills are, he raped a 13 year old girl. HOW exactly do they justify that??

Hollywood has no soul and no values. They would kill their own mother to get a deal and make some money.

For the record, a 2nd vicitim has come forward to say that Polanski sexually abused her at age 16 in Paris after he fled the US. The actress, Charlotte Lewis, who had a part in one of his films being shot at the time of the attack just came forward this May: http://freewomensblogs.com/2010/05/18/polanski-second-victim-steps-forward/

Shhh, stop taking sense. You are going to burst the bubble of some of the posters. They want to believe that Polanski is a model citizen (of what ever country) who is living a wonderful, giving and blameless life. Their whole argument is based on the fact that he is not a molester and this whole "sex with a 13 year old" was just a big misunderstanding or mistake. Or so it would seem in their posts.

And here you go and show them proof that he is still at it.