rucus7 Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 I am not sure why California's prosecutors are so quick to spend the taxpayer's money on this case.http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100122/en_afp/entertainmentusfrancefilmpolanski Maybe because drugging and sodomizing a 13 year old is a crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lvdkeyes Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wino Posted January 24, 2010 Report Share Posted January 24, 2010 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 More sharing options...
lvdkeyes Posted January 24, 2010 Report Share Posted January 24, 2010 IMHO, justice is always worth the fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 24, 2010 Report Share Posted January 24, 2010 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 More sharing options...
Wino Posted January 24, 2010 Report Share Posted January 24, 2010 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 More sharing options...
Beer Chang Posted January 24, 2010 Report Share Posted January 24, 2010 IMHO, justice is always worth the fight. In our system very often it's not in the defendant's interest to fight for justice and much safer to take a plea bargain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lvdkeyes Posted January 24, 2010 Report Share Posted January 24, 2010 How can it be in the victim's best interest to let a piece of shit like Roman go free? There was no plea bargain discussed. He fled the country to escape prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer Chang Posted January 24, 2010 Report Share Posted January 24, 2010 How can it be in the victim's best interest to let a piece of shit like Roman go free? Perhaps the payoff was more meaningful than revenge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lvdkeyes Posted January 24, 2010 Report Share Posted January 24, 2010 You mean a cash payoff? Maybe that's why the victim wants to let it go, but I am glad to see that the CA prosecutors aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer Chang Posted January 24, 2010 Report Share Posted January 24, 2010 Yea, a cash payoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wino Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 Cash payoff or not, she has gotten on with her life and after 30+ years does not want to revisit the past. I think her wishes should be granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lvdkeyes Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 So, you are saying that the law should be ignored because she wants forget it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wino Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 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 More sharing options...
rucus7 Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 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 More sharing options...
lvdkeyes Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 What he did was unforgiveable. That said, the victim has forgiven him, Enough said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer Chang Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 How much are these "big money" costs? High profile cases always take up lots of manhours. Jailtime is not cheap either. IMO California, given their big budget deficet, would be better served on things which directly affect their citizens in 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 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 More sharing options...
rucus7 Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 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 More sharing options...
Beer Chang Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 I guess it's a matter of priorities. High profile cases certainly do increase backlogs. The OJ trial probably took up 50 times as many resources as some random murder in East LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rucus7 Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 So Orenthal James should not have been prosecuted ? I guess it is a matter of priorities. Your analogy escapes me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer Chang Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 Just saying high profile cases are expensive, it's past history, he's not a future threat, so let sleeping dogs lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rucus7 Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 In this instance the dog is not sleeping. As far as not being a future threat, the past has not been adjudicated yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rucus7 Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 In this instance the dog is not sleeping. As far as not being a future threat, the past has not been adjudicated yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lvdkeyes Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 It sends the wrong message to let this kind of creep go free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts