Polanski's Victim to Request an End to Extradition Efforts

[Hissyspit]

Source: Los Angeles Times

Polanski's victim to request an end to extradition efforts

Samantha Geimer, who was sexually assaulted by the director in 1977, again comes to his aid. Her lawyer files papers accusing the prosecution of violating California victims' rights statutes.

By Harriet Ryan
January 21, 2010 | 7:26 p.m.

In the 33 years since she accused Roman Polanski of rape, Samantha Geimer has publicly forgiven the acclaimed director, accused the U.S. justice system of mistreating him and urged a dismissal of his still pending criminal case. On Friday, Geimer is expected to act again on Polanski's behalf and ask that a Los Angeles County judge halt efforts to extradite the filmmaker from Switzerland.

In papers filed in Superior Court on Thursday, Geimer's lawyer accused the Los Angeles County district attorney's office of violating state victims' rights statutes by not consulting Geimer prior to seeking extradition. In the filing, attorney Lawrence Silver wrote that Marsy's Law -- a 2008 statute passed by ballot initiative -- gives crime victims the right "to reasonably confer with the prosecuting agency, upon request, regarding . . . the determination whether to extradite the defendant."

The attorney said he wrote to prosecutors in July and made clear that Geimer wanted to meet with them and that she planned to "exercise every right that she may have under the Victims' Bill of Rights." Two months later, Polanski was arrested in Zurich on a three-decade-old arrest warrant, and prosecutors subsequently submitted a formal extradition request. A Swiss court has yet to decide the matter.

"The failure to give notice to and to confer prior to a determination to extradite the defendant . . . is a violation of the California Constitution," Silver wrote in the filing.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski22-2010jan22,0,4333409.story

[Flaneur]

1. Ooh, there's gonna be much wailing and gnashing of teeth now.

I tend to side with the victim here.

[Confusious]

3. Alot of victims just want to forget

What about the ones with Stockholm syndrome? Should we listen to them to?

What does this say about justice? If you're rich, if you have talent, you can get away with what you want? (We know that happens, I'd just like to see it stop)

[marshall]

77. She's probably been offered a payoff by Polanski's lackeys

Her mother got her payola, now it's her turn.

[struggle4progress]

104. No, she's sick of being in the news every frickin time the case is discussed. It was an unpleasant

incident in her life decades ago, and she's tired of being defined by it. If our corporate media had any decency, they'd take a frickin hint and leave the woman alone and keep her name out of the coverage

[marshall]

113. I agree that her name should be kept out of it

How did her identity even become public in the first place? Even the lying exotic dancer who falsely accused the Duke lacrosse team of rape is afforded more protection by the media than this woman, who was just a child when the offense occurred.

[Abacus]

50. I don't.

It's not just about her, it's about other potential victims and the signal it sends to other potential perpetrators. She says she has forgiven him, great; but that doesn't mean the state has. Since fleeing in itself is a crime, I'm not sure why her opinion would be relevant.

[struggle4progress]

63. Since he was convicted, the victim's preferences probably don't matter. But the woman is

tired of being defined by this unfortunate incident in her life. So common decency might suggest that we draw as little attention to her as possible while this matter proceeds

[jkirch]

53. Me, too. nt

[mystieus]

2. Its in the Law hands now. And I don't agree with the victim.

[uppityperson]

4. I am glad she is at peace with this. Now, if he would take responsibility for his crime...

[CBHagman]

10. Yes, that's entirely the point.

It's good if she is able to forgive him, and obviously she has built a life for herself, but Polanski has been playing the system for decades and apparently is determined to run out the clock.

[proteus_lives]

5. Polanski owes the state.

Big Time.

This isn't about her wants, it's about not letting a rapist get away with his crimes.

[mbperrin]

9. Yes, he pled guilty, then didn't want to face the consequences.

Still doesn't apparently.

So if you can intimidate your victim into giving up on charging you, you should go free? Hmmmm....no.

[izquierdista]

11. Yes, can't sully that plea bargain process

We all know that justice haggled over like a fish catch on a hot day is the best kind of "justice".

[mbperrin]

21. That was his choice to do that, wasn't it? He could have gone to trial

and proven his innocence. But he, a full grown man with millions of dollars available to hire legal counsel, decided not to do that. His reasons are his own.

But he did indeed plead guilty, and so is self-confessed a criminal. Now let him pay the price.

[msanthrope]

26. Right--'cause Polanski was poor, minority, and 'stuck' with the Public Defender, right?

Unlike my clients, Mr. Polanski had legal and financial options that gave him a sweet deal--that he backed out of....

[Hepburn]

117. The judge was the one who backed out the plea....not Polanski.

He did everything he was ordered to do and had agreed to do. The State Appointed evalulator ~~ not a Polanski expert ~~ gave a report to the court that this was an isolated incident in Polanski's life associated with extensive trauma he had suffered starting in childhood and that he was not a danger to society. The judge ~~ at his all WASP country club ~~ made the remark that he (the judge) was going to put that "little Jew" away for life and he did not care what the hell the court appointed evalulator said. Both sides, defense and the DA, had agreed that whatever came out of the eval, that both sides would comply.

So...when the judge went side ways on the plea bargain, Polanski left. Yes, what he did was wrong ~~ very wrong ~~ but when the judge decided to get that "little Jew", I can see why he left.

JMHO

[mbperrin]

118. Got any link that would verify the judge's remarks?

Keep in mind that the judge must always approve all plea deals - there is no deal until the judge says so.

The judge backed out of nothing. He was not a party to the negotiations - he was asked to approve it after all the talking was over.

And the judge has been dead since 1989, so he will have nothing to do with current proceedings.

[Hepburn]

119. The judge that said this was the sentencing judge....

...he was NOT dead when the sentencing was going on.

Everyone in the L.A. legal community knew about the remarks made by the judge at the WASP CC ~~ this was common knowledge. Here is a link if you wish:

"Our most astonishing discovery was that at a key moment, Rittenband took Polanski’s attorney Douglas Dalton and the Assistant D.A. Roger Gunson into chambers and told them how he wanted them to argue their case in court - a clear violation of court procedure. Rittenband also openly discussed the case with journalists. One reporter, Richard Brenneman, told us how he was buttonholed by Rittenband during a particularly tricky stage of the proceedings : “Dick - tell me. What the hell should I do with Polanski ?” One of Polanski’s friends recalled how his father, a prominent Hollywood producer, overheard the judge boasting at his LA Country Club about how he would put “that little blank blank Polanski away for the rest of his life.”

http://www.romanpolanskiwantedanddesired.com/the-case/

blank, blank = "fucking Jew bastard" to be exact. I don't know where you practice law, but where I do, what the conduct of the judge in the Polanski case pretty much defines "judicial misconduct." How do you feel about the meetings with the DA and defense counsel in chambers when the judge was scripting the questions to be asked? And the judge's press conferences when he demanded he only be photographed from certain angles? That work for you, too?

:eyes:

[mbperrin]

120. How do you feel about a grown man who drugs and rapes a 13

year old girl?

Don't start with consent, because she cannot give it. Period.

Now, he's admitted to that. What should happen?

Your link is a neat piece of gossip that doesn't even have your "jew" comment in it, anyway.

But yes, what about rape of underage girls?

[Realityhack]

115. Clearly if the process is flawed...

we MUST let out every criminal who ever plead guilty... Right?
Or maybe we should let the victims decide what their punishment should be instead of courts?

After all this guy was clearly a poor guy with inadequate representation who couldn't even read what he was signing right?

The system may not be perfect but that does not mean you get to ignore it whenever you feel like it.

[depakid]

6. Nothing had better stand in the way of that pound of flesh

not victims, nor "technicalities" in the law- nor the integrity of the criminal justice system itself.

And thankfully, state and federal governments have unlimited budgetary resources, so they can satisfy the need harsh retribution over and over- at any cost, with little regard to other factors that might arise.

[naaman fletcher]

7. So you support old men getting girls drunk and raping them as long as they are good movie directors?

[depakid]

16. The usual dumbass response...

Damn, it's simple to see how Americans so easily became a nation of torturers.

So... you support Islamic terrorists? Same deal...

A whole lot of folks are sicker than Polanski with their lust for vengeance.

[dustbunnie]

23. Yes, it's the usual dumbass response.

Nobody would give two shits about this whole thing if the man in question was an average joe off the street. No one would have invested all the money in tracking him down, and not a single soul would spend twenty seconds talking about it on a message board, that's for sure. I'm certain there are hundreds of men who're living "on the lam" right now over similar charges, and people couldn't care a fig less. Bring up another case and it won't get three replies. It's only because Polanski is wealthy and a Polish Jew that people are so ridiculous and overblown with the indignation and outrage.

[naaman fletcher]

30. BS, anyone else would have been arrested and extradited..

You guys support him because he is a celebrity.

[dustbunnie]

36. The US doesn't have an extradition treaty with France.

Look at all it took to get Einhorn back here, and he was a murderer. So no, money wouldn't be wasted on the average joe, and no one would give a crap after 30 years if someone was convicted of having sex with an underage teen.

There are people who commit statutory rape every single day. Every hour of every day, someone is having sex with an underage teen.

Where are all your threads about the topic? What are you doing about it? Where's the outrage?

Right.

[naaman fletcher]

37. who cares about France, he was arrested in Switzerland.

Guys on the run often don't get arrested because they keep a low profile. Polanski thumbed his nose at justice. You are ok with that. You support the rich and famous being above the law.

[dustbunnie]

41. He had a house in Switzerland and had been going there for years without issue.

It was only after the little spat between the US and Switzerland that the latter "made nice" by working this good PR spin. I'm not okay with anyone "thumbing their nose at justice." But people do it all the time and it doesn't make people fall to the ground quivering in a grand mal seizure the way this Polanski thing has. And the reason for THAT is, because he's wealthy, a celebrity, and shudder, AN ARTISTE. We HATE them.

[naaman fletcher]

42. Bizarre.. never thought I would see DU'ers supporting the rich buying their freedom.

[dustbunnie]

43. I'm not supporting the rich. Just laughing at the fake outrage of people...

People who normally don't give anything but a tepid tsk tsk to others having sex with underage teens going apoplectic over this case. The reason why is because Polanski is wealthy and works in the arts.

[WriteDown]

44. The reason why...

is this is a very famous case of someone fleeing justice.

Works in the arts? :rofl:

[dustbunnie]

45. Haha... yeah he's made some real duds, I'll agree.

But he's made some award winning and critically acclaimed features too. And he did teach at a reputable school so I guess you could say he worked in the arts.

[WriteDown]

46. Doesn't matter what he did...

His "work" is not the reason for the interest in the story. Its because its historically famous case. Like OJ, or Charlie Manson.

[dustbunnie]

54. OJ elicited all that attention because of his wealth.

People kill their wives every day too, and it doesn't garner much attention, so yes, it seems you agree with me that people are only interested because this is a case where someone happens to have a lot of money and celebrity. The act, or crime, itself doesn't really garner much interest.

[WriteDown]

57. The act is especially heinous in both this and OJ (and Manson)....

but just because they're famous and people take interest in the case they are not demeaning the similar cases that happen to other less famous people.

Or are you of this mind?

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200910u/gore-vidal

[dustbunnie]

69. It means they wouldn't waste their breath if the people involved weren't famous.

The act is no different or more "heinous" when wealth is involved. Do you think your murder or aggravated rape would be less special if a poor person committed the crime?

[WriteDown]

70. Check out the Sean Goldman threads...

He wasn't famous, but plenty of people spoke up. Are you saying we shouldn't be concerned about Roman until we are more concerned about the poor? Or are you saying that we should be even more concerned about the poor and less concerned about Roman?

[dustbunnie]

72. I already said what I thought. The outrage is so overblown and somewhat hypocritical --

considering that the crime is thirty years old and no one's said a peep until now, have instead gone to see his movies, plus the added fact that it happens every single day and no one really cares about such cases beyond a shaking of the head.

The frothing reaction and the high level grand mal seizures reveal that most people are only interested in the fact that Polanski is wealthy and famous and want to skewer him for that more so than his crime. It's disingenuous.

[WriteDown]

74. Please provide evidence that no one really cares about child rape.

Please point to another case of child rape addressed on DU where posters were more "understanding." Also, you never explained how a non-celebrity crime like the abduction of Sean Goldman elicited such strong reactions from DUers.

[toopers]

96. Manson was not famous before the killings . . .

a small point but he should be removed from this part. As a matter of fact, Polanski was not that famous until Manson's group killed Polanski's wife. More than likely, RP would be washed up except for his raping of young women, his willingness to tell people how much he enjoys young women, and the murder of his wife.

[joeglow3]

48. WTF???

I don't know who you hang around with, but the people I know respond to underage sex with more than just a "tsk tsk."

[dustbunnie]

51. Really? Well Polanski's been on the lam for what, 30 years?

How many threads have you seen denouncing him thus far? Anywhere on the net? Who's been keeping after the government to get this guy behind bars? Where's the outrage been all this time? Haven't seen you or anyone else start one single thread or heard of any of you protesting or getting your asses out there the last three decades to bring him to justice.

And quite frankly there are the occasional threads on here where someone's been arrested for statutory rape. There are maybe 20 replies then it dies out within half a day.

So yeah, spare me the big outrage.

[WriteDown]

58. Don't forget to mention that this girl was a hooker....

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200910u/gore-vidal

[PassingFair]

59. Just because Gore Vidal CALLS her a "hooker" doesn't mean she was one.

But even if she WAS, having sex with a THIRTEEN year
old hooker is STILL child abuse and rape.

[WriteDown]

65. I was being sarcastic...

Sorry, thought it was obvious.

[dustbunnie]

66. Has nothing to do with what I said. Strawman. n/t

[WriteDown]

67. Please explain how it is a strawman?

:shrug:

[dustbunnie]

73. I said absolutely nothing about her being a hooker, nor did I imply any such thing.

You've added a strawman to the discussion.

Nothing I've said has anything to do with his guilt or her actions. I've only commented on the hypocritical reactions of people and mused on the fact that people care so much because he's a celebrity, not overwhelmingly because of the crime itself.

[WriteDown]

75. No, but you seemed to indicate that the crime was not so bad...

or that we shouldn't be so concerned. I think people are just glad to see karma in action since we usually don't get the chance to see it in real time.

[dustbunnie]

78. I don't know how bad the crime was. Here's a boring story for you...

When I was fifteen some photographer dude asked to take pics of me. I was uber skinny then with good cheekbones. Yada yada, two years of fun and excitement and lots of pictures. At the time I felt so cool and grown up, and had a crush on the photog, even though he was nothing special. Still I was young and glitter-eyed, and would probably have done things sexually that I shouldn't have because of that. My mom however, never let me go to these shoots unaccompanied. If she had, don't know what would have happened since there was always a party atmosphere and lots of older people present.

So, if this girl behaved as I would have, that to me would puts Polanski out of the Paul Bernardo realm and into the realm of sleazebag. Of course what he did is against the law and he also ran away so he deserves to be jailed for those crimes, but neither I nor anyone else knows the details of what went on at that house that afternoon. There are all shades of gray that color the crime in this case.

To answer your other post, all I know is what I read and see. At the time he was caught, there were people here who were literally up all night long for days, really torn up and enraged, posting half violent diatribes for all intents and purposes calling for his execution. This doesn't happen when the usual old man/young girl threads pop up, so the level of rage and hatred expressed here and elsewhere lead me to believe it's all about his celebrity and wealth and less about the crime. And yes, to me that's hypocritical or at least, disingenuous.

[WriteDown]

79. Ah, you're not familiar with the case....

So familiarize yourself with "how bad" it was.

http://www.radaronline.com/sites/default/files/RomanPolanskiTranscripts.pdf

[dustbunnie]

80. Grand Jury transcripts are not trial proceedings and provide only one side of a story.

I'm very familiar with the case.

[WriteDown]

83. You just believe the 13 year old wanted to be drugged and raped?

Or what exactly? Her testimony is chilling.

[dustbunnie]

86. I believe it is possible for a young girl to be impressed enough by fame and prestige --

to agree to have some form of groupie-ish sexual relations with a pervy older guy and then have an uh oh moment when the shit hits the fan. I know this from personal experience and although everyone else on DU is perfect and was perfect when they were young, there are probably a few more like me out there. I don't know what happened at that house, neither do you, nor does anyone else other than Polanski and the girl. Yet you and others would bet practically everything but your lives that "you know" what went down. You can claim from here to eternity that she was violently sexually assaulted and you have exactly zero proof of any of it.

That's very weird to me. As someone stated below, there are children being violently sexually assaulted in Iraq today, on our dime... meaning we're being taxed to provide this horrible torture, yet people would rather froth at the mouth over a case that happened 30 years ago backed by nothing more than unsubstantiated testimony that wasn't even given in a proper trial courtroom.

[WriteDown]

87. Ah, so there we have it...

She probably asked for the 'ludes too. I think in about 99% of rape cases the girl really wants it, but is embarrassed to admit it afterwards and panics.

They do say that no means yes.

[dustbunnie]

89. What an idiotic response. I was waiting for it and knew it would come. n/t

[WriteDown]

90. I was just elaborating your argument. Kindler, gentler rape. nt

[dustbunnie]

92. Nope... you're proving my point about people wanting to froth at the mouth --

over this case of alleged rape where no one was charged and no one went to trial. You're exactly one of those people who couldn't give less of a shit over rapes that are slam dunk proven to be true with plenty of witnesses, like those that occur frequently in Iraq, but will stay up half the night preferring to focus on a maybe-it-happened-maybe-it-didn't-but-it-involves-a-rich-film-maker case.

[WriteDown]

100. I don't think rape should even be a crime....

Like I said. 99% of women want it, right? :eyes:

[dustbunnie]

106. If that's what you think, then you're a complete asshole or mentally challenged. You pick. n/t

[WriteDown]

107. As you've said. You don't know the circumstances of the crimes.

You weren't there. I think a lot of women are just dazzled by men and then have an "uh-oh moment."

[dustbunnie]

108. That's correct. Neither one of us was there.

But luckily we have you, Madame Writedown, the Great Oracle, who sees all and knows all. I hope you're offering your services to world governments. What an asset to crime solving you'd be. And I know I for one would love to know who Jack the Ripper really was. Any chance you can look into your crystal ball and let us in on the secret?

[toopers]

97. As you stated earlier . . .

The US does not have an extradition agreement with France. The Govt knew where he was but could do nothing about it. As well, the Swiss would not have arrested him if they did not know that he was coming into their country. RP "announced" that he was traveling to Switzerland, so they arrested him when he got there. Pretty damn stupid if you ask me. But so is drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 13-year old.

Further, there are websites for many victims of unsolved crimes, or for victims that have not received proper justice. It is unfortunate that they do not stay in the forefront of everyone's mind. However, when a crime is resolved, or justice can be served, it should be. It is in the best interest of society to make sure that all pay for the crimes they perpetrate.

[dustbunnie]

105. I agree with most of what you've said.

Now that Polanski has been caught, he should be punished for what he's done, and it seems he will.

Again, my comments were and are relegated to musing about our culture, where serious issues like rapes on campus, rapes of girls and women in Iraq for example, do not elicit even remotely as much interest and apoplectic outrage as the maybe yes/maybe no coerced rape by a world-renowned film director. That's because we're a culture obsessed with celebrity. We love to worship famous people and also drag them into the gutter when we can. It's fascinating to watch.

[toopers]

116. I think it has more do to with the fact that this is an easy victory . . .

to get behind now. It is much easier to support the things you can associate with. Famous people are public, and we get to know some aspect of them. They are familiar to us. All the other experiences are nameless/faceless. Are those victims less important -- obviously not. But, not that rapist RP is in custody, let's make sure he faces justice.

[Nye Bevan]

62. Yes! If an "Average Joe" anally raped a 13 year old girl,

after plying her with champagne and Qaaludes, we would all be like "Tsk! Tsk!"

[joeglow3]

47. You honestly think this was "just" statutory rape????

[dustbunnie]

55. I know what he pled to and what the charge was.

How about you? Got inside info you want to share with everyone?

[AngryAmish]

56. Hey, Whoopi, I didn't know you were a DUer

Since as you suggest it wasn't "rape-rape".

[dustbunnie]

81. I don't suggest anything. But I do know the difference between unlawful sex with a minor --

and a violent sexual assault. If you don't then you're quite ignorant.

[WriteDown]

84. Ah, I'm starting to get it. This was kindler, gentler rape. nt

[dustbunnie]

88. I don't know what it was, and neither do you. You just want to pretend you know --

because it's fun to hate wealthy people who make films.

He didn't even go to trial for, or plead to rape, but don't let that stop you! You'd fit right in, in a country like Saudi Arabia. They don't much care for due process either.

[WriteDown]

91. I do know what it was.

Rape-rape. She's testified to it and he has never denied it.

But I know that in your eyes this was only rape and not rape-rape.

Fearless Vampire Killers must have made some impression on you.

[dustbunnie]

93. Lol. How could he deny it when it never went to trial. You're starting to be really silly. n/t

[WriteDown]

99. Yeah, he's only had 30 years. Like I said, I got it. It wasn't rape-rape. nt

[dustbunnie]

109. Yes, you do get it. You're just being obtuse because you're infatuated --

with hating Polanski because he's a wealthy film maker and our culture is obsessed with celebrity. If we were talking about your brother, I'll bet you'd prefer due process and people sticking to the facts.

You absolutely know the difference between consensual sex that is not allowed by law and being violently accosted and having a penis rammed into your body. If you don't, then you belong in an institution.

[WriteDown]

110. You're actually right. I hate rapist-rapists. And I hate just plain ol' rapists too.

So being drugged in is consensual, but just not allowed by law.

You must love this guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Luster

[dustbunnie]

112. No I don't and you're only accusing me of these ridiculous claims because you're childish.

Because you're one of those caught up in the whirl wind of celebrity trash, it astounds you that someone actually prefers such matters to be resolved in a court of law rather than be another sheep on a message board. It must absolutely kill you that Polanski was not convicted of forcible rape or contributing to the delinquency of a minor. It must fill you with disgust that there are women such as myself who did stupid things like have sex with those we shouldn't have when we were young. You must be beside yourself that the only punishment Polanski will incur is that for the crimes of consensual sex with a minor and fleeing the country. I hope you don't suffer a cerebral hemorrhage from the outrage.

But if you ever lose the taste for celebrity trash and care to make a difference, find out where your local rape crisis center is and offer your help. There are many ways to volunteer that don't necessarily require a lot of time.

[msanthrope]

31. You wouldn't give a shit?

Are you including yourself in that?

If you found out that your neighbor or co-worker were a child rapist on the lam, you would you do nothing?

If you found out that your wife or child had been hurt, you wouldn't care as long as enough time had passed?

Would you forgive the Average Joe who jumped bond/bail?

Polanski wasn't persecuted because of his wealth, nor because he is/was a Polish Jew....crying anti-Semitism here doesn't help your agenda.

[dustbunnie]

38. I'm not crying anti-semitism, and don't really care if Polanski is put in jail.

He ran away and so must pay the price. My comment is restricted to why people are so outraged and reply with such ferocity. It's because he's wealthy and a celebrity.

None of this would cause a ripple in anyone's pond if he was a bank teller, or a garbage collector, or unemployed. How do I know this? Because it happens every day, and the only time anyone sputters with indignation is if the person is a celebrity or a teacher. Otherwise, no one gives a crap.

[closeupready]

39. I wasn't aware Mary Kay Letourneau was a wealthy celebrity prior to her conviction.

Things you learn every day. Who knew.

[dustbunnie]

40. Pears to bananas. But whatever. n/t

[depakid]

33. Not sure if I agree with all of that- but if you look at the posts below

you can see quite clearly the nature of what I was talking about. Listen to them howl for for their pounds of flesh!

Neither the passage of over 3 decades, the absence of any danger to society- the wishes of- or harm to the victim nor prosecutorial or judicial misconduct matter one iota- no if i gets in the way of their lust for vengeance or violent retribution.

How easily some are emotionally short circuited and manipulated- no surprise that in addition to torture and Guantanamo, the country's built and maintains the world's largest and most expensive prison system- with ever increasing- and often mandatory (and/or draconian) sentences.

[closeupready]

35. Do you believe there should be a statute of limitation on being a fugitive?

Even if there was a SOL on the crime Polanski committed, that clock would have been halted upon flight, to be restarted upon his return.

[sabrina 1]

64. Sad, isn't it? And yet, we know that Iraqis were raped

tortured and sodomized, some of them children, but the U.S. has decided to 'move on' from that. Worse, the justice system now says that the victims cannot even sue their rapists and torturers.

I see few threads expressing similar outrage from these people on what is an on-going problem of abuse at the hands of invaders against a vulnerable population. Not only is the U.S. government not prosecuting these criminals, they are covering for them.

Since the victim in this case, DID receive compensation and has requested an end to this thirty-year-old case, it seems more than a little hypocritical that this country, on the one hand, refuses to pursue justice for those poor torture victims, most scarred for life, and yet will put so much energy into finding 'justice' in this one case.

When the rule of law returns to this country, I guess I'll get outraged over something like this. Meantime, we still have innocent people being tortured, and defenders of policies that have done nothing to end these injustices while threads about Polanski produce hundreds of comments expressing so much outrage, you'd actually think we lived in a country that respects justice, if you didn't know better. I'm sure the world laughs at our hypocrisy.

[naaman fletcher]

29. So explain yourself then..

Why don't you want a man who got a girl drunk and raped her, and then fled justice, to be brought back to the US? Do you think anyone who manages to get away for 20 years should be forgiven?

If he wasn't a movie director would you feel the same?

Please explain.

[closeupready]

49. Interesting, isn't it, how when the snipers here are challenged, they scurry.

Would be nice if they could mount a defense of Polanski more intelligent than, "pound of flesh/revenge-seekers/neanderthals/shitheads".

[sabrina 1]

71. Explain yourself. Why, since rape, which btw, was not the charge

in this case, is such a huge concern of yours going back 30 years, don't you focus on the rape, sodomy and torture of children by this government. Maybe start a thread on the subject since the crimes are not 30 yars old but are ongoing. And this country has decided that they are 'in the past and we must forward'. How about putting all that outrage into the thousands of cases for whom the U.S. government has ruled their will be no justice, not even monetary compensation as the victim in the Polansky received.

I know it is the fashion to let the world know how 'angry' and 'outraged' we all over over this one case and there have been thousands of outraged comments right here on DU, far more than I've seen on the ongoing crimes being condoned by our government.

Is it because the victims of our foreign policy are not white, American citizens? Seems to me if you have all this outrage to spare, you might want to apply it to try to get some justice for those for whom very few in this country are speaking.

[Robb]

8. Sorry, fuck that. You high-stick, you go to the penalty box. nt

[WriteDown]

15. Which part of rape do you condone?

Just to be clear.

[Nye Bevan]

18. So prosecuting child rapists = getting "a pound of flesh"?

And based on your concern for state and federal governments budgetary resources, what other types of criminals should not be prosecuted, in order to save money?

[closeupready]

25. And some of your best friends are fugitives, is that correct?

??

[AB_Positive]

12. This isn't about victims or criminals anymore

It's about how the Justice system is used. It really boils down to this:

Victim wanted input into the extradition. Justice system is overruling the victim, breaking the Victim's bill of rights.

If the victim does NOT want extradition, there shouldn't be any. The point is to acquiesce the victim. I don't care who the criminal is, what the crime is... and I'm pretty sure I've never seen a Polanski film. I really don't care who he is, or what he's done.

Rape is a terrible crime. Rapists should get caught and penalized. However the victim has to agree to the Judicial system going after him. I don't agree in violating the victim's rights. If she doesn't want a court case, DON'T go after him. Very simple.

[Coventina]

13. That's not how the criminal justice system works.

When a criminal case is brought, it is the state vs. the defendant, NOT the victim vs. the defendant, and for very good reason!

If we conducted the justice system based on what victims "want", we would have battered wives who would consistantly refuse to bring charges against their abusive spouses (or husbands against wives).

There are a lot of other reasons why your system would not work.

I think the victim's wishes should be taken into account to an extent, but definitely NOT to the extent that you propose.

[sabrina 1]

76. Maybe you haven't been following the justice system

in this country. But rape, sodomy, torture even resulting in death, once they are in the past, even the very recent past, are not prosecutable. We are encouraged to 'move forward' even from crimes as recent as the past few years.

Which may be why the world views the so-called outrage of Americans over this 30 year old Polanski case where, btw, the charge was not rape, as pure hypocrisy.

Until we return to the rule of law and start taking rape and abuse seriously, it is ludicrous for this government to be pursuing this case. In fact, this government has decided that those children and women, and men who were tortured and raped in our secret gulags have NO recourse, they cannot even sue.

So, if we can move forward from all of that, what is it about THIS old case that makes it different? Is it because the victims in the more current cases are not Americans while the perpetrators ARE? This is the exact opposite, isn't it? The victim was a white American citizens and the perpetrator was a foreigner. Someone needs to clarify our laws for me. Do we only pursue crimes if the perpetrators re foreign and the victims, Americans?

[WriteDown]

17. Fail...

The victim has no input into sentencing.

[Nye Bevan]

19. So if a guy beats his wife to a bloody pulp, then she decides to forgive him,

and wants to reconcile with him, the guy should not be prosecuted, right? Because that would be "breaking the Victim's bill of rights"?

[RZM]

52. Exactly what I was thinking . . .

Plenty of victims want leniency for those that commit crimes upon them. Victims, IMO, have a right to speak and be heard by everyone, but ultimately what they may or may not think about the case is not particularly relevant to the judicial process. It works the other way too; no doubt there have been many victims who advocate penalties for their assailants that far exceed the normal range.

[Gormy Cuss]

20. The victim does not have the right to stop extradition.

Here's the text from the CA Victim's Bill of Rights:

To reasonable notice of and to reasonably confer with the prosecuting agency, upon request, regarding, the arrest of the defendant if known by the prosecutor, the charges filed, the determination whether to extradite the defendant, and, upon request, to be notified of and informed before any pretrial disposition of the case.

That's what her lawyers are arguing didn't happen -- notification and conference regarding the determination whether to extradite. She doesn't have the right to stop the court action, only to be a party to the discussion.

[DerBeppo]

28. I disagree

What about a 14 year old on a F.L.D.S. compound that's been raped for years by her "husband"? If she says she doesn't want him prosecuted because she loves him, should he be? I say yes.

What about a domestic violence situation where the victim refuses to press charges because the attacker "didn't mean to" and in the end, the victim "should have known better"? Should the attacker be prosecuted? I say yes.

There are specific and necessary reasons to ignore the wishes of victims in certain crimes. This situation, I believe, is predicated on the victim wanting it all to go away and possibly a large cash settlement not to long ago (right around the time she changed her tune on all this).

The prosecutors should have consulted with her if that's the law, but the extent of that consultation should have been "I know you don't want to, but we're doing it anyway."

[Codeine]

61. Victims do not prosecute.

This is the responsibility of the justice system.

[Nye Bevan]

14. I understand how a victim of child rape might just want to put her ordeal behind her

But when a guy plies a 13-year old girl with Qaaludes and champagne, then anally rapes her, he needs to be punished. Even if the victim wants to forgive and forget.

[closeupready]

22. With all due respect, it doesn't matter what you want, Ms. Geimer.

This is now between Polanski and the State of California.

[ElmoBlatz]

60. Exactly

If a man beats up his wife, but she doesn't want to press charges, its too bad.

[barb162]

95. That's right. Crime is still crime whether you get paid off or not. n/t

[msanthrope]

24. Did Polanski ever pay her the judgment she won? Or is he still holding out?

I want to know the status of payment of her judgment....






Polanski Agreed To Pay $500,000 In Civil Suit
ANGELES — Film director Roman Polanski agreed to pay his sexual assault victim $500,000 to settle a lawsuit 15 years after he fled the United States, according to court documents provided to media outlets Friday.

Polanski and the victim, Samantha Geimer, reached the deal in October 1993. The terms of the settlement were confidential, but the amount was disclosed in court documents because of a two-year struggle to get Polanski to pay.

Court records do not indicate if Polanski, now 76, ever paid. The last court filing in August 1996 shows Polanski owed Geimer $604,416.22, including interest.


More at link

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/02/polanski-agreed-to-pay-50_n_308419.html

[naaman fletcher]

32. I'm sure he paid in order to get her to say not to extradite him. Rich get better justice than poor

And because he is a celebrity people here support that.

[msanthrope]

34. Or maybe he's witholding until she jumps through hoops....either way

it's something I'd like to know.

When it was paid, and how much.

What were the terms?

[closeupready]

27. What are Ms. Geimer's thoughts on bringing fugitives to justice?

Did she have any comment about that?

[depakid]

82. My guess is that unlike you- she's come to tems not only with her situation

but with the foul side of human nature that makes so many obsessed with punishing -or even torturing "bad guys" because it make you "feel good."

In a way, the case is proving to be a useful thing on a larger scale. It reminds the rest of the world what Americans are STILL like, even though Obama has replaced Bush as the ostensible "face" of the nation.

[WriteDown]

85. Free Bernie Madoff and Charlie Manson!

They're practically old men and their crimes are long in the past. Why do we insist on torturing these people? :eyes:

[depakid]

94. Another excellent example

of what I've been discussing. At least you've managed to get over the habit of searching out and posting the worst outrages of the day occurring somewhere in the nation or the world- in order to rail about it. Tough addiction to beat- that one is.

Hang 'em high has a lot of primitive appeal.

[WriteDown]

101. Free Hat!

I have to believe that either you or someone close to you has done something horrible and been punished or is avoiding being punished. That would explain why you are always against any punishment even for the most heinous crimes.

[closeupready]

103. Certainly, in all the dozens of his posts here, he has not explained himself.

Not exactly holding my breath here, but I'll check it later just out of curiosity.

[closeupready]

102. In the real world (not the one you inhabit), fugitives are criminals.

Sadly, in your perverted attempt to defend Polanski, you resort to the same Republican tactics of smearing your adversaries, as "vengeance, bloodthirsty mobs".

[dysfunctional press]

68. the 'victim' is also the state of california.

that's how statutory cases work.

[Robb]

98. Indeed. nt

[brooklynite]

111. I'm willing to accept her request...

...provided he's still prosecuted for flight to avoid prosecution.

[Blandocyte]

114. A crime's a crime, independent of whether the victim "forgives"

so effing what? Extradite. Try. Jail.