Okay, so in the past few days, filmmaker Roman Polanski was finally collared after more than 3 decades on the loose for his rape of a 13-year old in 1977…

Roman Polanski is a sleezeball. Thirty years ago, when he was 44, he was at a friend’s (Jack Nicholson) . There also was a 13 year girl. He drugged her and then raped her.
From the AP:
Polanski was charged in 1977 with raping a 13-year-old girl he pl…

“The legal proceeding and the circumstances about the proceeding are two different animals”

You’d have to pick that bone with the courts; Mike Nifong was disbarred because of circumstances surrounding proceedings, which you claim are unimportant.

They likely haven’t heard that his guilty plea has some very arcane, unheard-of definition which means he didn’t really plead guilty.

Wtf are you even talking about? That’s a very nice strawman for something that was never said. For the 4th time, this disagreement is NOT about the court’s definition of the plea, it’s about certain commenters who can’t seem to wrap their mind around the fact that a plea is not the same as a confession as a clear statement of the actual facts of what occured.

I’d say “as far as the court is concerned” is all that matters when one choses to plead guilty to a crime.

That would be your opinion. Most reasonable people prefer to know the truth, which may not always agree with a plea, because a plea is a legal device that can be made for any number of reasons. It has been known to occur that people plead guilty to crimes they haven’t committed… which sometimes allows the actual perp to go free… which according to you would never matter? And before you twist that, no, I’m not saying he’s innocent, just that a real world exists outside a court of law.

To claim that a guilty plea means nothing or is ambiguous to a court would be to be out of touch with reality.

Well gee, I’d agree with that … too bad no-one claimed that or we could laugh at them. You show a gross ignorance of what a plea DEAL is and how it works… and how it can screw you if the deal is reneged upon.

We completely agree that he should have settled this some thrity years back, but I don’t know why you can’t understand that’s NOT the source of disagreement:

Pleas are merely mechanisms of the court, not lynchpins of fact. Blind acceptance of the latter seems to be the only reason there’s disagreement on this board… This is a simple disagreement over unfounded accusations of mala fides, and anything beyond that is merely muddying the waters.

I don’t know how to make this simpler for you. There are only 2 people that know what actually happened 30 years ago. No-one commenting here, including me, including you, is one of them. Knowing what the plea was does not make you omniscient as to the facts of events 30 years ago, nor of the reasons that pleading was entered. Compelling evidence has been given that the plea was entered under questionable circumstances, even as far as duress.

This is not the USSR, and so long as reasonable legal questions remain, it is reasonable for everyday people outside the court to maintain healthy skepticism of the pleadings. And maintaining skepticism as to the pleading is not the same as proselytizing for pedophilia.

Khyris said:

“The legal proceeding and the circumstances about the proceeding are two different animals”

Wrong.

You’ll have to pick that bone with the courts, Khyris, since they had Polanski arrested for some odd reason. They likely haven’t heard that his guilty plea has some very arcane, unheard-of definition which means he didn’t really plead guilty.

“But the bottom line is that it does mean that to the court.”

Yes, this is what “in-lieu” means as I already stated. It means as far as the court is concerned, not in as far as magically altering history for the entire world.

I’d say “as far as the court is concerned” is all that matters when one choses to plead guilty to a crime. “Altering history” (or revising history) would be to say Polanksi did not plead guilty. To claim that a guilty plea means nothing or is ambiguous to a court would be to be out of touch with reality. Ask Bernie Madoff if his guilty plea was some other-worldly concept devoid of substance, meaning or consequence.

That being said, though I think Polanski should have settled this in the US some thirty years back, I would surprised if he were extradited to the US that the sentence would be anything of consequence.

The previous reference to “case” had no meaning

Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t make it meaningless.

The legal proceeding and the circumstances about the proceeding are two different animals

Wrong. Or at best a distinction without a difference. Just ask Mike Nifong. If a proceeding is surrounded by circumstances which are misconductive, they color the proceedings. This is known as “bad faith”. Neither is dismissable as “opinion,” which is a nonsensical argument.

But the bottom line is that it does mean that to the court.

Yes, this is what “in-lieu” means as I already stated. It means as far as the court is concerned, not in as far as magically altering history for the entire world. This is the sophomoric understanding I mentioned.

I don’t think you’re being facetious, at least, I hope not, but you seem to be ignoring the allegories laid out for you and rehashing points already explained. See the example of Craig above. Pleas are merely mechanisms of the court, not lynchpins of fact. Blind acceptance of the latter seems to be the only reason there’s disagreement on this board. Anything you might add beyond that about your relatively limited legal experience just doesn’t affect anything either way so it’s not a big deal.

Yes, people do disagree, and that act itself is difficult enough to resolve without the pacifist inclination to squelch disareement without resolution, so the tautolgies from left field are really counterproductive.

This is a simple disagreement over unfounded accusations of mala fides, and anything beyond that is merely muddying the waters.

Roland said:
I’ll give you the last word, if you want it.

Thanks. You just got into a spitting contest with someone who was only looking to rattle your cage. You are wise if you let it go; it should be the worse thing that anyone has to deal with in life, Roland.

Good people will honestly disagree and sometimes get carried away.

I have also been on the internet a very long time. I have a very thick skin, believe it or not.

An accusation of being sympathetic to pedophilia is a grave insult. Pistols at dawn grave. “Good people” do not make that kind of insult. Or, if they do in the heat of the moment, they withdraw it.

Feelings had nothing to do with it. They are fighting words.

However, I have a thick skin. I considered the source: Internet scum.

The source was not “good people,” purplepeep. We are not morally equivalent, that accuser and those of us who were smeared.

I am tired of this subject/thread. I have other things to do. I’ll give you the last word, if you want it.

Roland said:
I can say that because I’m not a clueless enabling like you who still doesn’t get the point.

You likely don’t see the irony in the above and your complaint that someone called you an enabler-apologist-sympathizer-whatever because they misinterpreted what you’ve said.

I’ve been on the interwebs ever since Algore invented it. There’s an old saying amongst old computer vets: “it’s all ones and zeros”. If you don’t have a thick skin your feelings are going to get hurt a lot, Roland.

If you think someone has misrepresented what you’ve said, call them out on it. If they can’t respond or respond with even more jackassery, ya gotta learn to just blow them off.

Good people will honestly disagree and sometimes get carried away. It happens to all of us at one time or another. It goes with the territory. I’ve lost count of the heated exchanges I’ve had over the years with people for whom I have great respect. And we strongly agree more than we strongly disagree. That’s life.

There are the lefty trolls who seek to stir up trouble – such I just mock and laugh at as long as they aren’t disrupting the comments with nastiness.

Also, there are the manners-deprived who are very desperately looking for attention of any kind, who will spout all manner of absurdities. When that happens, you point out the jackassery. If it’s an ongoing, disruptive problem to boardies you bring it to the attention of the host/hostess.

Likewise, if someone is attacking you personally with crazed accusations that’s also something you’d bring to Michelle’s attention – she doesn’t brook such behavior. I’ve seen commenters booted for abusing fellow boardies.

But your run-of-the mill flame wars usually don’t cause much trauma. You learn what to sweat and what not to sweat. One of those “if I had a penny for every time…” things.

If you scroll up you’ll see where I lent you an amen on prison rape being as wrong and criminal as any rape “on the outside”. Someone may read that as being “soft on criminals”. But unless they can provide a rational legal reasoning that validates their assumption, it’s their problem, not mine. Macht nichts to me.

I’m sorry. Really. I shouldn’t have done that.

See, I can say that because I’m not a clueless enabling like you who still doesn’t get the point. Instead you target the way I said it while ignoring the point, just like a leftwing ******* would do.

I am disappointed in you.

Roland said:
Ignoring that kind of offense doesn’t make you ‘impartial.’

I’m unaware of where I made a claim of being “impartial”, Roland. In fact, I just did a page check and the only time the term pops up in highlight is in your comment.

Well, these things bring out strong feelings in folks. Kinda falls into into the “everybody has an opinion” category to me – it doesn’t affect anything either way so it’s not a big deal. Even good people very often disagree.

Someone who accuses me of sympathizing with pedophilia because I defend the rule of law is not “good people.”

Unless they apologize. And that has not happened here.

That kind of insult is fighting words, purplepeep. Ignoring that kind of offense doesn’t make you ‘impartial.’ It makes you an enabler.

Khyris said:
According to the case history (meaning, from the history of this case’s legal proceedings, affadavits, public statements by the victim, etc)

I see, Khyris. The previous reference to “case” had no meaning, since the term has legal meaning to me. The legal proceeding and the circumstances about the proceeding are two different animals. It’s somewhat like the difference between saying “The sun is the center of our solar system” (material fact) and saying “Man, the sun is hot today!” (opinion).

Being a big film buff I’m pretty well-versed on both the material fact and the opinions in this. You can scroll up a few comments to see where I’ve brought up the misconduct allegations, which so far fall into the “opinions” category. I’m also somewhat knowledgable on the legal issues involved here.

pleading guilty doesn’t MAKE you ACTUALLY guilty

But the bottom line is that it does mean that to the court. In a guilty plea, you skip trial and go on to the sentencing phase. Where Polanksi made a major mistake – in the legal realm – was in taking off. You just don’t have the legal option of splitting because you don’t like the sentence you may receive.

Had Polanksi stayed and made a legal case of the allegations of misconduct, he may have prevailed. His atty tried to make it a legal issue as recently as Jan 2009. The judge (Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza) sent a signal, to my thinking, that the courts may be sympathetic: “It’s hard to contest some of the behavior in the documentary was misconduct,” Espinoza said in court.

(He was referring to a documentary on the Polanski case.)

But any legal proceedings on the question can’t occur without his presence in court:
“In this matter, there is an outstanding arrest warrant that requires the defendant’s presence in court”

(Both quotes from the judge from 1/2009 CNN article.)

people making the false dichotomy that we must assume guilt or be an apologist for pedophilia are just using typical liberal tactics.

Well, these things bring out strong feelings in folks. Kinda falls into into the “everybody has an opinion” category to me – it doesn’t affect anything either way so it’s not a big deal. Even good people very often disagree.

But as I mentioned in a comment above, I’d be surprised if Polanski receives any kind of a sentence on this.

In fact, he may well never end up in a US courtroom since he has never been a US citizen, but rather shares French-Polish citizenship status. That can be important, if Switzerland follow the precedent set by the Yevgeny Adamov case where, instead of the Swiss honoring a US extradition request, they handed Adamov over to the Russian courts due his status as a Russian citizen:
Yevgeny Adamov – Wikipedia.

So there’s a possibility that if Polanksi is extradited, it could be to France or Poland instead of the US. I don’t think he’d need to be overly worried about running into a “hangin’ judge” or facing a hostile court in either of those two countries.

At any rate, he could have resolved the matter legally, either way, in the US 30 years ago. But you can’t just takeoff because the outcome may not be to your liking. That just compounds the problem.

Is Polanski’s Arrest “Political” In Nature? Hollywood Says “Yes”, Common Sense Says “No”…
Let’s start this one off with a reminder from the LEFT-WING MEDIA publication called Salon:
Reminder: Roman…

A person can change his/her plea – before adjudication – if they believe their first plea to be wrong, but Polanski didn’t do that.

Not before ajudication no. But if the judge agrees to let you off with time served if you plead guilty to a given time… but then once your plea is immutably locked in indicates you will be given the maximum sentence… knowing that the judge would renege might have changed how you plead depending on your reasons for pleading in the first place.

Some people have a very sophomoric view of law: pleading guilty doesn’t MAKE you ACTUALLY guilty any more than pleading NOT-guilty makes you ACTUALLY not-guilty. In short, a plea is not proof, but a hypothesis in-lieu of proof. Entering a guilty plea is very different from making a confession, which is something Polanski didn’t do, afaik. According to the case history (meaning, from the history of this case’s legal proceedings, affadavits, public statements by the victim, etc) there is a lot of alleged judicial malfeasance which clouds the certainty of the conviction.

And people making the false dichotomy that we must assume guilt or be an apologist for pedophilia are just using typical liberal tactics. It’s the same as “agree with Obama, or else you’re a racist” nonsense, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.

It doesn’t hurt to wait for the facts… if he’s guilty he’ll get his.