Jump to content
Thaiway

Forever Roman

Rate this topic


smoker

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The crime victim is against it and I think her views should be important in this case. Certainly the 77 year old criminal is no threat to the good people of California. The state is running in the red and is cash-strapped. Is this battle worth fighting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The crime victim is against it and I think her views should be important in this case. Certainly the 77 year old criminal is no threat to the good people of California. The state is running in the red and is cash-strapped. Is this battle worth fighting?

If you read any of the transcript of what really happened, I'm amazed you can think that way. He drugged and raped a 13-year kid when he was in his 40's and there is absolutely nothing you can possibly say or think to minimize that.

Prosecutors do take into consideration what a victim thinks and wants but a prosecutor's job is not only to make the victim "happy" (I put that in quotes as too often that's a very weird use of the word "happy"). There is such a thing as charging somebody with a crime because the person needs to be punished and there is also a time where a case needs to be pursued to send a message to the public that certain behavior won't be tolerated.

A couple of decades ago, prosecutors routinely dismissed domestic violence cases at the request of the victim (usually the wife or girlfriend). And what the prosecutors and legislators found occurred was a continued string of beatings by the same agressor. That rarely happens anymore and there's a hell of a lot less repetitious violence by the same guy against the same women.

If anybody truly feels sorry in any small way for Roman Polanski, I feel sorry for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel sorry for Roman. I understand how the prosecutor likes to set examples to send a message to the public. My point is a 30+ year old case with money a factor, and no threat to the public, and the victim is pleading the case for the defendant. I think there are other battles to fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you staunch law and order people will disagree, but this is my take on the Roman issue. I have no sympathy for the crime he committed. What he did was unforgiveable. That said, the victim has forgiven him, payoff or not, she has gone on with her life and does not want Roman brought to justice. I think the prosecutors should respect her wishes. It has been 30 plus years and she has put this incident in the past. Deals are made all the time in our system and I am all for a deal. In these 30 plus year Roman, at 77 years of age, has had no further problems with the law and is no threat to the public. Why spend big money on this case when there are better uses of scarce public funds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you staunch law and order people will disagree, but this is my take on the Roman issue. I have no sympathy for the crime he committed. What he did was unforgiveable. That said, the victim has forgiven him, payoff or not, she has gone on with her life and does not want Roman brought to justice. I think the prosecutors should respect her wishes. It has been 30 plus years and she has put this incident in the past. Deals are made all the time in our system and I am all for a deal. In these 30 plus year Roman, at 77 years of age, has had no further problems with the law and is no threat to the public. Why spend big money on this case when there are better uses of scarce public funds?

How is Roman Polanski's age relevant? How much are these "big money" costs? What do you base your assumption that he poses "no threat to the Public" on? His admitted guilt, along with flight from potential incarceration are the current issues. I believe it is the state of California vs. Roman Polanski. The victim has been paid in a Civil suit. Perhaps this satisfies the victim, however it has no bearing on the Criminal case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jailtime is not cheap either.

Nope, it's not. But there are state laws that allow the state to go after the individual for the cost of their incarceration (allegedly some $40,000.00 per year depending on the location). They only do that, of course, with the rare case where the person can actually afford to pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

High profile cases always take up lots of manhours........

given their big budget deficet, ....

These " man hours" are generated by individuals in exempt salaried positions. An exempt position means it is not subject to overtime. They will cost the citizens of California the same amount, whether they work on Polanski's case or someone else's case.

It may increase the backlog of criminal cases. This will keep those that are waiting for their day in court, waiting longer. Is that too high a price?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...