They finally caught Roman Polanski

[Vanadium 50]

Hollywood has gone from simply out there to insane:

Had the victim been, say, Miley Cyrus, and had the perpetrator been some unknown, Hollywood would be screaming for his head on a platter.

 

[russ_watters]

russ, you really enjoy a good argument huh? :D 90% of threads I see you in you're involved in one somehow.

I like that, good man. haha :D.

The politics forum is where people debate politics. So yeah - I come in here to argue.

Caveat: there is another reason why people come in here: to make speeches.

I'm not big on making unsolicited speeches, so I'd say even more than 90% of what I do in here is arguing. And the amount of posting I do here ebbs and flows with the climate of the forum. When it drifts off into left field is when I feel compelled to come in and push it back toward the center.

And, of course, some issues I care about more than others. This one disgusts me.

I don't see why so much conversation has gone on about extradition though. If the Americans wanted him badly enough he would be in America right now. Extraordinary rendition the American government calls it. Who's going to stop them?

I'm not sure I follow you there: how would the US get him here "right now"? You seem to imply the FBI (or LAPD?) could just go grab him. The US doesn't have the power to arrest people in other countries except in war. Extradition is a legal process that necessarily involves paperwork before the arrest and hearings and challenges afterwards, before the extradition. It isn't necessarily a simple process.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Um... Statutory rape IS the CONSENSUAL sex of a minor (past puberty) with non-minor. That's what it is. If it's not consensual then it's just flat out rape. That being said, by the victims testimony, she is clearly describing a rape.

 

[russ_watters]

Um... Statutory rape IS the CONSENSUAL sex of a minor (past puberty) with non-minor. That's what it is. If it's not consensual then it's just flat out rape.

Sorry, that's just plain wrong. Rape is by definition not consentual and statutory rape is a type of rape. A subset. Read the dictionary definition and read the legal definition. Both have been discussed already. Here's more:

The criminal offense of statutory rape is committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Statutory+Rape

The definition could not be more clear: consentual sex with a minor is not possible because minors are not capable of consent.

Also, pre or post puberty doesn't have anything to do with it, afaik. There is no separate law for sex with a 9 year old that's different for sex with a 13 year old.

That being said, by the victims testimony testimony, she is clearly describing a rape.

Yes, she described violent rape, but he pled guilty only to statutory rape.

 

[Sorry!]

The politics forum is where people debate politics. So yeah - I come in here to argue.

Caveat: there is another reason why people come in here: to make speeches.

I'm not big on making unsolicited speeches, so I'd say even more than 90% of what I do in here is arguing. And the amount of posting I do here ebbs and flows with the climate of the forum. When it drifts off into left field is when I feel compelled to come in and push it back toward the center.

And, of course, some issues I care about more than others. This one disgusts me. I'm not sure I follow you there: how would the US get him here "right now"? The US doesn't have the power to arrest people in other countries except in war. Extradition is a legal process that necessarily involves paperwork before the arrest and hearings and challenges afterwards, before the extradition. It isn't necessarily a simple process.

Even in the other forums... just an observation it's nothing bad your good at it.

And yeah I know the process of Extradition but America DOES 'kidnap' people and transfer them. There was a big thing about it with the European Council awhile ago actually. This does however mostly have to do with national security lol.

 

[Office_Shredder]

...neither of those two thing have anything to do with your previous quote, which seems to me to be an irrelevant criticism of the US legal system. You seem to be implying that those things play a part in extradition hearings, but you haven't presented any information to imply that that is true - and I don't think it is! You've added more: Polanski skipped-out on his sentencing. He hasn't been sentenced yet, so how can that be a relevant concern? Are you asserting that in deciding on extradition, the Swiss do/should consider the outcome of prosecution and sentencing? How can they do that without having a trial themselves? Are you asserting that the Swiss would/should base extradition on the predicted direction and outcome of a new trial that there isn't any reason to expect would happen anyway? How does that not sound silly in your head when you think it?

Potential sentencing is often taken into consideration when looking at extradition. The extraditing nation looks at what the other country wants the prisoner for, and what potential repercussions to the prisoner there will be, and then considers whether it is consistent with the laws/morals of their nation as well. A prime example is that some nations will not send prisoners to the US without a guarantee they will not be executed

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Sorry, that's just plain wrong. Rape is by definition not consentual and statutory rape is a type of rape. A subset. Read the dictionary definition and read the legal definition. Both have been discussed already. Here's more: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Statutory+Rape

The definition could not be more clear: consentual sex with a minor is not possible because minors are not capable of consent.

Also, pre or post puberty doesn't have anything to do with it, afaik. There is no separate law for sex with a 9 year old that's different for sex with a 13 year old. Yes, she described violent rape, but he pled guilty only to statutory rape.

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

First sentence. Consensual in the dictionary sense, as in "I consent". Not in the legal sense that government X has determined you are to immature to participate in political and judicial proceding therefore your opinion is void. I know there's currently a thread raging about this but I've always found the notion of a government body unilaterally convincing people who have had sex below a certain age that they have been victimized to be silly. If you don't feel victimized then who is the government to tell you that you are a helpless victim. And yes. In many countries "child molestation" is a much greater charge and only applicable to "children"

 

[russ_watters]

Even in the other forums... just an observation it's nothing bad your good at it.

If you say so...

And yeah I know the process of Extradition but America DOES 'kidnap' people and transfer them. There was a big thing about it with the European Council awhile ago actually. This does however mostly have to do with national security lol.

I can't imagine the US would just go snatch someone in a European country. Do you have a link to the incident you are talking about? I've never heard of it.

 

[Office_Shredder]

If you say so... I can't imagine the US would just go snatch someone in a European country. Do you have a link to the incident you are talking about? I've never heard of it.

You don't remember that CIA case where they just grabbed someone from Italy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Extradition_and_abduction

Wikipedia has a list of cases of "unilateral" extradition such as it is

 

[russ_watters]

You don't remember that CIA case where they just grabbed someone from Italy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Extradition_and_abduction

Yeah, I probably heard about that and forgot. Like I said in the previous post: Except in war. Also, though the Italian legal system indicted a bunch of CIA agents over it, they also indicted a bunch of Italian agents and the Italian press calls it a joint operation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Rapito_affair

Wikipedia has a list of cases of "unilateral" extradition such as it is

To my point, that's a short list and only 3 on that list can be considered common criminals (and only one of those is by the US, by the DEA, from Mexico), the rest are spies or terrorists or otherwise related to war.

So the idea that someone like the FBI would just go snatch a guy like Polanski from France or Switzerland doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[Borek]

Yes, she described violent rape

I think we differ when it comes to understanding word "violent".

Is it a term applied for legal reasons, or just an adjective?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

They are alien to most of Europe, certainly in the extreme way there are used in the US.

What is extreme about the manner in which it is used in the US?

edit: I must say that what I read about the lack of 'plea' in european civil law makes much more sense of Kafka's The Trial for me.

They don't necessarily need to prosecute him for skipping out of the country. They have enough to sentence him for statutory rape, no?

There are statutes of limitation. California has limitations for all crimes with a penalty less than life imprisonment or capital punishment. When a minor is involved the statute of limitations may be suspended until they are of age though I am not sure if that applies outside of civil cases. The fact that he was convicted may or may not effect the statute of limitations as well. In the end it is really easier to add fleeing sentencing to the charges so that the defense will have a harder time requesting dismissal and a harder time arguing to a jury that the crime is too old to punish him for.

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

First sentence. Consensual in the dictionary sense, as in "I consent". Not in the legal sense that government X has determined you are to immature to participate in political and judicial proceding therefore your opinion is void. I know there's currently a thread raging about this but I've always found the notion of a government body unilaterally convincing people who have had sex below a certain age that they have been victimized to be silly. If you don't feel victimized then who is the government to tell you that you are a helpless victim. And yes. In many countries "child molestation" is a much greater charge and only applicable to "children"

Ability to consent is rather important. The line may not be clear agewise but the law cannot afford to leave it to vagaries.

Also, pre or post puberty doesn't have anything to do with it, afaik. There is no separate law for sex with a 9 year old that's different for sex with a 13 year old.

Most places have laws that distinguish by age. Federal is apparently 12 and under for sex with a child as opposed to rape.

I think we differ when it comes to understanding word "violent".

Is it a term applied for legal reasons, or just an adjective?

Generally when a person has committed an act upon another by force or against their will it is considered 'violent'. The law takes a broad view of what is considered violent so that even though a person may not have beat someone and done obvious injury to them during the course of a rape the court may still consider forced penetration an act of violence in and of itself. Unfortunately there will still be the issue of proving that it was forced which is difficult without any evidence of injury. In Polanski's case he apparently qualified under three categories of rape. She was under age, he gave her drugs that reduced her ability to resist or make an informed decision, and he apparently forcibly penetrated her against her will since she said 'no' but she was too intoxicated to put up resistance.

 

[Count Iblis]

You've said that several times, in contrast to what others have said. Do you have any documentation for this?

I'll look into this. In the country I live in, plea bargain doesn't exist and would be a non-starter if it ever were to be proposed. And I don't live in Scandinavia, so msheslep is wrong about his claim that outside of Scandinavia plea bargains do exist.

 

[Count Iblis]

Are you asserting that the Swiss would/should base extradition on the predicted direction and outcome of a new trial that there isn't any reason to expect would happen anyway? How does that not sound silly in your head when you think it?

I agree with Office_Shredder:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2374562&postcount=41

The Swiss judges will take into account what Polanski will face in the US and see if that falls within the bounds of what is seen to be reasonable.

 

[Count Iblis]

What is extreme about the manner in which it is used in the US?

The big difference between the sentences you can face when you confess or don't confess. Also, the fact that so much bargaining about what to confess on in exchange for lighter sentences can go on at all.

 

[russ_watters]

I think we differ when it comes to understanding word "violent".

Is it a term applied for legal reasons, or just an adjective?

For legal reasons. Legally, physical force, threat of physical force, and drugs are all in the same category.

Even as a loosely applied adjective, though, I would think that it would make sense that using drugs to lower someone's physical and emotional resistance is a form of physical force.

 

[russ_watters]

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

First sentence. Consensual in the dictionary sense, as in "I consent".

The quote in the wiki article is:

The phrase statutory rape is a term used in some legal jurisdictions to describe consensual sexual relations that occur when one participant is below the age required to legally consent to the behavior.

So it is consentual sex with someone who is legally incapable of consent? That's an obvious logical contradiction that just means they had some trouble explaining the concept. It's like when a dictionary definition uses the word in its own definition. The definition I posted is better because it explains the concept without the contradiction.

Regardless...

Not in the legal sense that government X has determined you are to immature to participate in political and judicial proceding therefore your opinion is void. I know there's currently a thread raging about this but I've always found the notion of a government body unilaterally convincing people who have had sex below a certain age that they have been victimized to be silly. If you don't feel victimized then who is the government to tell you that you are a helpless victim. And yes. In many countries "child molestation" is a much greater charge and only applicable to "children"

Ok, so your objection here really is that you don't like the idea of having a legal definition of "statutory rape" at all. Well fine, but that definition exists and we're discussing reality in this thread. I'm not interested in how this case would go based on how you think the law should work - I'm interested in how this case will go based on how the law does work.

We can discuss why there should/shouldn't be a statutory rape in another thread.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree with Office_Shredder:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2374562&postcount=41

The Swiss judges will take into account what Polanski will face in the US and see if that falls within the bounds of what is seen to be reasonable.

One of the criteria for extradition in the treaty I linked is legal compatibility, which means the countries must have legally compatible laws. A notable example where that doesn't exist is with capital punishment, as Office_Shredder noted. Yes, it does happen that with capital punishment cases, negotiations may be made to ensure that the death penalty is not on the table.

This is not a capital punishment case and both Switzerland and France have compatible laws with the US on rape. So whether Polanski is to get freed on probation or retried for rape and sentenced to 20 years in jail simply isn't relevant to the extradition request/process.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1285/Guilty-Plea-Plea-Bargaining-comparative-perspective.html

It seems that plea bargaining is a hot topic in Europe. I'm finding many papers on it but unfortunately most of them I can not access without subscription.

It seems rather odd to me that in a system of law that requires a trial there are no negotiations to increase the expediency of the trials.

 

[Count Iblis]

This is not a capital punishment case and both Switzerland and France have compatible laws with the US on rape. So whether Polanski is to get freed on probation or retried for rape and sentenced to 20 years in jail simply isn't relevant to the extradition request/process.

The judge does not purely rule on the law here. If the judge feels that a 20 year's sentence is likely in the US and that 20 years for a 76 year old person for this crime would be way too harsh then the extradition may not go ahead, despite what the law says.

In the US, judges are far more contrained by the law in the way they can rule.

 

[mgb_phys]

It seems rather odd to me that in a system of law that requires a trial there are no negotiations to increase the expediency of the trials.

I think it's perceived as altering the impartiality of the judges/trial process if it means that political and financial considerations come into it.

There used to be a 'offences taken into account' in Britain where a criminal would admit to other crimes and the police would make a statement in court emphasising his contrition and asking for a lighter sentence. Naturally this was abused to the point that every house breaker caught would automatically admit to every other unsolved robbery on the police's books and they could report a 100% cleanup rate.

 

[Galteeth]

I think we differ when it comes to understanding word "violent".

Is it a term applied for legal reasons, or just an adjective?

In this particular case, the girl was not a willing participant, hence the rape was a violent act. I believe that it what the poster means.

 

[mheslep]

I'll look into this. In the country I live in, plea bargain doesn't exist and would be a non-starter if it ever were to be proposed. And I don't live in Scandinavia, so msheslep is wrong about his claim that outside of Scandinavia plea bargains do exist.

That is the third time you've claimed such, and still no backup.

 

[Borek]

Generally when a person has committed an act upon another by force or against their will it is considered 'violent'.

For legal reasons. Legally, physical force, threat of physical force, and drugs are all in the same category.

Even as a loosely applied adjective, though, I would think that it would make sense that using drugs to lower someone's physical and emotional resistance is a form of physical force.

In this particular case, the girl was not a willing participant, hence the rape was a violent act. I believe that it what the poster means.

According to Webster: rape - any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. What does "violent" change then? Isn't "violent rape" a pleonasm?

 

[mheslep]

What is extreme about the manner in which it is used in the US?...

Just FYI, I think plea bargains are abused in the US, especially since a relevant supreme court ruling several decades ago. I reject the claim though that plea bargains don't exist in Europe.

Very good background reference:

Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.

That is, the main argument is that plea bargains, when abused, effectively deprive us of our constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv26n3/v26n3-7.pdf

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Plee bargains save tons of money and get a criminal to jail (albeit for a shorter time) right away instead of a court case that could literally last decades.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

The quote in the wiki article is: So it is consentual sex with someone who is legally incapable of consent? That's an obvious logical contradiction that just means they had some trouble explaining the concept. It's like when a dictionary definition uses the word in its own definition. The definition I posted is better because it explains the concept without the contradiction.

Regardless... Ok, so your objection here really is that you don't like the idea of having a legal definition of "statutory rape" at all. Well fine, but that definition exists and we're discussing reality in this thread. I'm not interested in how this case would go based on how you think the law should work - I'm interested in how this case will go based on how the law does work.

We can discuss why there should/shouldn't be a statutory rape in another thread.

Dude, it's not a matter of how the law "should" be, that's how the law IS. Statutory rape is a DIFFERENT crime than normal rape and comes with significantly less severe punishment because the "lack of consent" is due to a legal technicality not the dictionary definition. If you force yourself upon a 13 year old that's just regular rape according to the law. It's only statutory if there was consent in the "dictionary" sense.

 

[mheslep]

Plee bargains save tons of money and get a criminal to jail (albeit for a shorter time) right away instead of a court case that could literally last decades.

Be that as it may, saving money does not justify the elimination of the right to a trial by jury.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Be that as it may, saving money does not justify the elimination of the right to a trial by jury.

Well it's a bargain. No one is making you take it. But if you do go through the courts and you lose the punishment will be worse. You're not losing the "right" to anything.

 

[mheslep]

Well it's a bargain. No one is making you take it. But if you do go through the courts and you lose the punishment will be worse. You're not losing the "right" to anything.

Spurious. There are plenty of parallel examples in speech rights, where the government or groups have attempted oppressive tactics against free speech that didn't explicitly take the right away, but the courts have reasonably said these tactics created 'chilling' effects and threw them out.

Take for instance your ability to post on the net. Suppose in a US where court had not so acted, that I (as speech Czar) say go ahead and post what you will, but if I don't care for it, I will generally investigate your background, have the IRS run an audit on you, have the EPA check to make sure you never washed a paint brush in the sink, see if you have unpaid parking tickets. And even if this all comes back squeaky clean, BTW I'll be notifying your university that all of these investigations are ongoing. (All of that is analogous to the pressure a prosecutor can apply for a plea). Mind you I am not taking your 'right' to post here, go right ahead, but 'no one is making you' post either. It's your 'bargain'.

The courts have rightfully prevented this kind of thing for happening with speech, but somehow plea bargains have been treated differently and received a pass.

 

[Choronzon]

Spurious. There are plenty of parallel examples in speech rights, where the government or groups have attempted oppressive tactics against free speech that didn't explicitly take the right away, but the courts have reasonably said these tactics created 'chilling' effects and threw them out.

Take for instance your ability to post on the net. Suppose in a US where court had not so acted, that I (as speech Czar) say go ahead and post what you will, but if I don't care for it, I will generally investigate your background, have the IRS run an audit on you, have the EPA check to make sure you never washed a paint brush in the sink, see if you have unpaid parking tickets. And even if this all comes back squeaky clean, BTW I'll be notifying your university that all of these investigations are ongoing. (All of that is analogous to the pressure a prosecutor can apply for a plea). Mind you I am not taking your 'right' to post here, go right ahead, but 'no one is making you' post either. It's your 'bargain'.

The courts have rightfully prevented this kind of thing for happening with speech, but somehow plea bargains have been treated differently and received a pass.

That's why you have the right to an attorney, and to even be charged with a crime the prosecutors have to convince a grand jury that there is cause to do so. You also have the right to offer up your own litigation if you feel you've been wronged. The government can't make everyone's life perfect, but they can give you legal redress, which Polanski had.

 

[Count Iblis]

That is the third time you've claimed such, and still no backup.

And I now claim this for the fourth time:

Plea bargains do not exist where I live.

And I will not bother to back this up. I have better things to do than waste my time on that.

 

[Galteeth]

Spurious. There are plenty of parallel examples in speech rights, where the government or groups have attempted oppressive tactics against free speech that didn't explicitly take the right away, but the courts have reasonably said these tactics created 'chilling' effects and threw them out.

Take for instance your ability to post on the net. Suppose in a US where court had not so acted, that I (as speech Czar) say go ahead and post what you will, but if I don't care for it, I will generally investigate your background, have the IRS run an audit on you, have the EPA check to make sure you never washed a paint brush in the sink, see if you have unpaid parking tickets. And even if this all comes back squeaky clean, BTW I'll be notifying your university that all of these investigations are ongoing. (All of that is analogous to the pressure a prosecutor can apply for a plea). Mind you I am not taking your 'right' to post here, go right ahead, but 'no one is making you' post either. It's your 'bargain'.

The courts have rightfully prevented this kind of thing for happening with speech, but somehow plea bargains have been treated differently and received a pass.

I know this is off topic, but do they? I would argue that in a society with so many laws where, practically speaking, everyone is breaking SOME law, the process you speak of is quite common (although it's usually on a more local scale, not a federal czar).


Practical example: White forty-somethings don't loiter. Only blacks, punks, people under the age of 30, etc., loiter. (Although the law isn't written this way, it's enforced this way, and generally understood to be the case.)

 

[WhoWee]

I know this is off topic, but do they? I would argue that in a society with so many laws where, practically speaking, everyone is breaking SOME law, the process you speak of is quite common (although it's usually on a more local scale, not a federal czar).


Practical example: White forty-somethings don't loiter. Only blacks, punks, people under the age of 30, etc., loiter. (Although the law isn't written this way, it's enforced this way, and generally understood to be the case.)

I guess you haven't been to the golf course lately? I'm not sure where you are going with your example - it is off topic.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

According to Webster: rape - any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. What does "violent" change then? Isn't "violent rape" a pleonasm?

Its because the law also accepts the view that having sex with a person who is unable to give informed or uninfluenced consent, although they may participate willingly, is also rape. So underage people who are influenced into having intercourse with an adult willingly through perhaps some form of subterfuge or implied threat is rape. And if you give someone a drug which renders them unable to use proper decision making skills but pliant and willing to have sex this is also rape. There is also rape by threat of violence as opposed to violence itself.

Just FYI, I think plea bargains are abused in the US, especially since a relevant supreme court ruling several decades ago. I reject the claim though that plea bargains don't exist in Europe.

Very good background reference:

That is, the main argument is that plea bargains, when abused, effectively deprive us of our constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv26n3/v26n3-7.pdf

I see that this can be the case in some instances but I do not know that this is all that common. I have been to court a few times and saw several plea bargains made as a matter of course, none of which seemed coercive. In fact I received one myself. Had I not I would have gone to jail. Had I been in a civil law court I would have spent what ever amount of time going through the process of being convicted by trial (with out a jury) and then sent to jail.

Be that as it may, saving money does not justify the elimination of the right to a trial by jury.

As already pointed out a plea does not take away your right to a trial by jury. It maintains your right and gives you the option rather than foisting your rights upon you. There may be room for abuse which could lead to a person being tricked into giving up their right to a trial by jury but there is room for abuse in any system and the occasional abuse does not constitute "elimination of the right to a trial by jury". Its like saying that since some police officers beat suspects with their baton police carrying batons is an elimination of the right of suspects to not be beaten.

Spurious. There are plenty of parallel examples in speech rights, where the government or groups have attempted oppressive tactics against free speech that didn't explicitly take the right away, but the courts have reasonably said these tactics created 'chilling' effects and threw them out.

Take for instance your ability to post on the net. Suppose in a US where court had not so acted, that I (as speech Czar) say go ahead and post what you will, but if I don't care for it, I will generally investigate your background, have the IRS run an audit on you, have the EPA check to make sure you never washed a paint brush in the sink, see if you have unpaid parking tickets. And even if this all comes back squeaky clean, BTW I'll be notifying your university that all of these investigations are ongoing. (All of that is analogous to the pressure a prosecutor can apply for a plea). Mind you I am not taking your 'right' to post here, go right ahead, but 'no one is making you' post either. It's your 'bargain'.

The courts have rightfully prevented this kind of thing for happening with speech, but somehow plea bargains have been treated differently and received a pass.

The DA and police use all sorts of methods to coerce and intimidate suspects. Why throw out a useful tool that can be beneficial to both the courts and the defendant just because it may be abused by some rather than root out the abuse itself which will likely just take a different form in absence of the particular tool?