"I say we take that sword and give him the Bob Barker treatment...spay and neuter him!!"

--Donkey (vox by Eddie Murphy) to Shrek (vox by Mike Myers), regarding Puss In Boots (vox by Antonio Banderas), from "Shrek II"

Before I begin the "meat" of this session's entry, a bit of housekeeping is in order:

The entry on Capital Punishment has garnered the most published comments of all entries in this weblog...so far. I do not break the entries into a pro-con tabulating format, but take each entry as it comes in.

In my upcoming book, the "Comments" will get a separate section. Not that I dislike any of what you folks have written, but a seperate section lets the comments shine on their own. Also, all those who contribute will get a nod on my "Acknowledgements" page. After all, your comments help keep these entries honest.

Now, on to the "Main Event":

I read about the arrest of Roman Polanski a couple of days ago. Though he's fighting extradition tooth-and-nail back to the United States, he should be grateful that he is not being extradited back to his native Poland!

Now, why is this?

Because of a new law passed by the Polish Government. It mandates that any man who molests a family member, or a child 15 or under, faces mandatory chemical castration upon release from prison. No plea deals, no nada--you get out of durance vile, you are going to get Depo Provera shots...like it or lump it!

Supposedly, a theraputic course of Depo Provera injections are supposed to render a man incapable of sexual desire...let alone be able to get his gear to function correctly! Many states here in America have the same laws, but Poland is the first industrialized nation to implement such legislation nationwide.

It used to be that if a stranger was caught doing the nasty to a young daughter, the method of castration was far more primitive...ususally involving a sharp knife to the privy parts, and all of the gear got chopped, not just the nuts.

There is quite a bit of debate about how effective Depo is in preventing the recurrance of molestative desires and behavior. Of course, in ancient history, it was said that enuchs were incapable of sexual desire and response after getting "snipped." However, that wasn't the case. Many times, enuchs could not only get their remaining gear to work, but also could, on the side, give a harem girl much needed--if illicit--relief.

If the US is successful in extraditing Polanski, he will be tried in Los Angeles County on charges of child molestation (from the early 1970's). Will this trial even happen...or will the case be dismissed, with Polanski walking away free to resume his career in the States?

It might be a possiblilty...if the defense attorney for Polanski can convince a judge that the "statute of limitations" had expired in the case. True, Polanski's life wouldn't be worth a plugged zloty if that happened...or if he ends up standing trial, gets convicted, and gets shipped off to prison. Prisoners tend to not ony detest convicted child molesters--they also tend to have long memories.

But, once Polanski's plane touches down at LAX, that will be for the court to decide. Mr. Polanski should, while on the flight back to the States, show some gratitude about not being flown to Warsaw International to face Polish justice...and the needle that comes after he does his time!

--RKJ

Comments

Josh Board Sept. 29, 2009 @ 4:37 p.m.

Fish...out of curiosity, what would you say Polanski's punishment should be?

I did a blog on this, but I don't think you commented:

0

CuddleFish Sept. 29, 2009 @ 4:50 p.m.

I am not in a position to comment since I don't know the facts of the case beyond what's available to read in the media.

0

CuddleFish Sept. 29, 2009 @ 9:15 p.m.

This kind of nonsense is what breaks down out justice system.


I do agree with this statement whole-heartedly. It's too bad cops, attorneys, prosecutors, judges right on up to the Supreme Court don't.

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 29, 2009 @ 7:27 p.m.

Opps, I posted a link to Polanski's PLEA agreement-here is the link to the grand jury testimony;

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

0

SDaniels Sept. 29, 2009 @ 2:28 p.m.

"In my upcoming book, the "Comments" will get a separate section. Not that I dislike any of what you folks have written, but a seperate section lets the comments shine on their own. Also, all those who contribute will get a nod on my "Acknowledgements" page. After all, your comments help keep these entries honest."

I don't care if you use my writing, as long as they are comments confined to your weblog, LP, but wondering: What is the protocol there? Who actually 'owns' our comments? The Reader? The blogger upon whose story we've commented? Interesting question. I'm sure you or refried can answer this one :)

0

CuddleFish Sept. 29, 2009 @ 12:06 p.m.

Your information is incorrect, RKJ. This topic has been covered in another thread where I made it clear that Polanski has not been arrested for the sex crime. He has been arrested for being a fugitive. The issue of the sex crime was long resolved, Mr. Polanski pled guilty, was sentenced, served his time, then fled when the judge indicated he wanted to change his mind about the sentence and give him more time, possibly up to ten years. Since that time, new information indicated that the judge and prosecutor were engaged in serious professional misconduct. The victim filed a motion asking that the case be dropped.

I think, as I said in the other thread, that it is important to stop the deliberate conflating of the two issues, it does no service to the victim.

0

SDaniels Sept. 29, 2009 @ 2:29 p.m.

re: #1: So his sentence was a 42-day psych evaluation?

0

CuddleFish Sept. 29, 2009 @ 2:45 p.m.

Under the terms of the plea bargain, Polanski was ordered to undergo a ninety-day psych evaluation, and then be sentenced to probation in exchange for a guilty plea to one count of intercourse with a minor, as I recall. Polanski accepted the deal, pled guilty, voluntarily turned himself into for the psych eval, was released after 45 days, and was waiting for the last part of the bargain, to appear in court and turned over to probation. So yes, the psych eval was part of the sentence under the plea agreement.

0

CuddleFish Sept. 29, 2009 @ 2:59 p.m.

Oh, that's interesting, I thought there were terms of use when I signed up and opened my blog. Will have to scout around ...

Refried, El Lunatico has responded to your post at last! They must take long naps at Mesa College!

0

SDaniels Sept. 29, 2009 @ 8:59 p.m.

SurfP got his license out of a box of Milk Bone. He's "bonified!" :)

0

SDaniels Sept. 29, 2009 @ 9:01 p.m.

Fishikins, you'll find, kidding aside, that SurfP is very good when it comes to the legal perspective. He's going to represent me against Sallie Mae :) (I wish).

Fishy, you seem pretty good with this stuff, too: Do you watch Court TV (now, or at least temporarily, since who the hell knows where it's going in November) "In Session?"

0

David Dodd Sept. 29, 2009 @ 3:10 p.m.

Ms. Fish, it's covered here:

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/terms_of_use/

Most of it is boiler-plate. The Reader is pretty cool about not screwing with intellectual rights. I really love the section about user-provided content, though:

"..all information you provide is true, accurate, current and complete, and does not violate these Terms of Use..."

It sort of proves my point about facts versus fictions. Everything I've submitted is absolutely true (well, except for the Liza Minnelli thing, but after all, I do point out in the title...).

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 30, 2009 @ 12:25 a.m.

SurfP got his license out of a box of Milk Bone.

He's "bonified!" :)

By SDaniels

Grrrwwwwww.....I like to take bites out of the milkbones!

0

David Dodd Sept. 29, 2009 @ 2:51 p.m.

Technically, the Reader "owns" the comments, or at least, reserves the right to use them (or our blog entries) in any way they would like. However, we reserve the right to reprint them in any way we wish. Where there is no terms of use, there is no rule of exclusivity (is that really a word?).

However, Robbie (or rather, Robbie's publisher), does have the obligation to have us sign waivers. We are freely giving our words (for good or bad) to the Reader in exchange for the platform to launch our petty tirades. But, excepting the Reader, anyone who publishes anything in here that they didn't write themselves are liable (sounds like libel, smells like lawsuit) for any words not written by the author.

(Robbie, you can use my comments, but let's change the name attributed to them. Make one up. I'll sign the waiver.)

0

Robert Johnston Sept. 29, 2009 @ 6:53 p.m.

Hi, RKJ here!

Fish, you got me there. Mea Maxima Culpa on that point. However, the point of my entry was that if the extradition is valid, and Mr. Polanski has to take his lumps on the molestation conviction, that what awaits him in the US is far, far better than in his native Poland...if the conviction is, indeed, upheld.

The place I found out about Poland's new after-sentence punishment for child-molestation is on Yahoo News. I sent a copy to my dad, since he finds such odd things amusing.

As for using the Comments for each blog entry in my book: Thank you for educating me on this...something I do need to know. Right now, the book in question is merely in the transcription/forming stage. Whether or not your comments get used, indeed, will be upon the advice of my agent and/or attorney.

This subject will be covered at a later time.

Now, onward!

--RKJ

0

Robert Johnston Sept. 29, 2009 @ 7:13 p.m.

RKJ again... I meant to say "fugitive from justice charge" in the first part of my comments. Another blown phrase...must be really tense today. More than likely, Polanski will walk...if his attorney can do a proper job.

Mr. Polanski wasn't a good choice to use in this piece, I can see now. Still, the difference between Poland's new law, and our own, makes for great comparasion/contrast here.

Wherever such a horrid crime happens (I survived two molestation episodes, btw, so I know of where I write), judicial retribution is deservedly swift, harsh, and long-lasting.

I survived, but the scars in my soul will be there until the day the Reaper comes for me. I do not wish my violators eternal damnation in the Ninth Ring of Hell...that's God's decision. But as for child molesters in general? Their "delight" becomes their eternal pain...and they deserve every moment of it!

Just pulled a turkey thigh from the Electrobachi, and put number two on (soy sauce, terriaki sauce, and Italian Dressing marinade).

We'll cover the other issue later.

--RKJ

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 29, 2009 @ 7:17 p.m.

I am not in a position to comment since I don't know the facts of the case beyond what's available to read in the media.

By Fish

Well since the Grand Jury report is public record, let me enlighten you as to what Roamn did to a 13-year-old girl.

1) Plied her with alcohol and drugs

2) Raped her

3) Sodomized her

If this happened today he would be in prison for LIFE.

He pled out on to a felony-which makes Roman a convicted felon.

As has been documented by the current criminal court itself, the original judge and prosecutor engaged in numerous ex parte/illegal communications- and that alone in a case this serious would get them BOTH disbarred.

Roman was getting the sweetheart deal of the century in his plea agreement- then the prosecutor and judge conspired illegally and the judge was going to possibly send Roman to the big house for 50 years-YES, from no time to 50 years.

This kind of nonsense is what breaks down out justice system.

I don't know who was more out of line in this case-the judge and prosecutor or Roman.

But make no mistake about it-the criminal acts Roman engaged in were dispicable and if it happened today his life would end in a jail cell.

Read the grand jury testimony yourself here;

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html

0

SDaniels Sept. 29, 2009 @ 8:12 p.m.

Hey SurfP, thanks for the information! Fish, too.

"Roman was getting the sweetheart deal of the century in his plea agreement- then the prosecutor and judge conspired illegally and the judge was going to possibly send Roman to the big house for 50 years-YES, from no time to 50 years."

Issues still to be cleared:

I'll read over the grand jury testimony, but how, SurfP, could this have transpired? How did the judge and prosecutor arrive at this ridiculous first plea deal? How did they try to conspire on the second, and how did Polanski hear of it?

Fish: Why do you give up?

Should we be calling the gentleman RKJ?

This sounds good:

"(soy sauce, terriaki sauce, and Italian Dressing marinade)."

I like to mix soy and Italian dressing, too--with citrus!

0

CuddleFish Sept. 29, 2009 @ 8:47 p.m.

Well, SurfPuppy, thanks, I have now read all the material you've supplied, and it is pretty much as I suspected. I don't know what you practice, whether criminal or civil law, but surely you can see why he was given the plea bargain. And if you can't then you got your license out of a Cracker Jack box. :)

This is precisely why I responded in one of these threads that the judge surely knew what he was doing. From all I read, and surely the judge read the same, this was the best outcome in the case, and one which everybody was agreeable to.

0

CuddleFish Sept. 29, 2009 @ 9:11 p.m.

A Milk Bone license, now that's a new one on me! :) I reserve judgement on SurfPuppy's legal acumen on his answer to my question. I will tell you a story, though, apropos of nothing. ;)

I was having breakfast one morning with an attorney. He was leafing through the newspaper and an article caught his eye. It was about a child rapist, as I recall, don't remember the details now, anyway, he was all angry and disgusted, much as SP appears to be in his post. So when he paused for breath, I said, Would you defend him? And he said, Yeah, if he paid me what I wanted.

No, I don't watch Court TV. But I do watch travesty of justice shows like Judge Judy, does that count? :)

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 30, 2009 @ 12:16 a.m.

I'll read over the grand jury testimony, but how, SurfP, could this have transpired? How did the judge and prosecutor arrive at this ridiculous first plea deal? How did they try to conspire on the second, and how did Polanski hear of it?

I suspect it was the fact that Roman was a big Hollywood director (people with money and power ALWAYS get better deals than the poor man) and the fact that the criminal penalties were not as harsh 30 years ago as they are today.

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 30, 2009 @ 12:18 a.m.

Well, SurfPuppy, thanks, I have now read all the material you've supplied, and it is pretty much as I suspected. I don't know what you practice, whether criminal or civil law, but surely you can see why he was given the plea bargain. And if you can't then you got your license out of a Cracker Jack box. :)

This is precisely why I responded in one of these threads that the judge surely knew what he was doing. From all I read, and surely the judge read the same, this was the best outcome in the case, and one which everybody was agreeable to.

By Fish

I have no idea what you're referring to-but 50 years in jail would be on the high side, while walking free with no jail time would be a flat out joke.

A jail term of 3-5 years would be fair for this hideous crime, in this time period. If this happened today it would be 20 years plus.

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 30, 2009 @ 12:24 a.m.

No, I don't watch Court TV. But I do watch travesty of justice shows like Judge Judy, does that count? :)

By Fish

I love Judge Judy! I remember BEFORE she had a TV show she was a well respected family law judge in NYC and "60 Minutes" interviewed her-and she came across as very harsh-but she is certainly not like that on her TV show.

Family Law judges, as a group, are the most incompetent judges in the system. Not very intelligent, and have very over inflated views of themselves.

Same goes for administrative judges-both of these judges are at the bottom of the judging foodchain and really resent their positions in the system.

Pray you never have to get in front of either one of them.

0

SDaniels Sept. 30, 2009 @ 1:14 a.m.

"Family Law judges...very over inflated views of themselves."

Funny, same thing with family med practice. Oh wait, and also specialists. Scrap that. Speaking of 'scraps...'

"Grrrwwwwww.....I like to take bites out of the milkbones!"

Focus, Puppy! Take big bites out of Sallie Mae, which is nothing more than a giant Milk Bone! :)

0

CuddleFish Sept. 30, 2009 @ 1:23 a.m.

SurfPuppy, excuse me, but did we read the same transcripts???

Let me just remind you of the facts of matter -- I say facts, even though there was no trial, because most of this was in the plea bargain agreement.

As to the victim: This 13-year-old girl admitted to Polanski having first had sex at the age of eight. Even in her own version, this girl admitted to the grand jury having had sex at least twice before.

This girl by her own admission said that she voluntarily drank champagne that day with Polanski, and there was an independent witness to the fact. She admitted to the grand jury that she had gotten drunk on a number of occasions in the past.

This girl by her own admission said that she had taken Quaaludes before. She didn't say that Polanski forced her to take it that day, she says in her own version that he offered it to her and she took it.

This girl admitted that on the previous day Polanski had taken pictures of her with her top off. She admitted that she did not tell her mother about this.

This girl admitted that she again voluntarily undressed in front of Polanski a number of times the next day, including taking off her dress in the bathroom and coming out to the jacuzzi in only her panties.

(to be continued)

0

CuddleFish Sept. 30, 2009 @ 1:24 a.m.

Now as to the rape:

This girl admitted that she knew that at least two people had been in the house with her. One person, Anjelica Huston, actually knocked on the door when the rape was supposedly going on, Polanski went to the door and spoke to her, and this girl put on her panties in the meantime. Did she at any time scream that she was being raped or try to escape? No. She said that she waited and that Polanski came back to the room took her panties off again and proceeded to force her to have sex. Now, this girl also says that she was saying No No the whole time. Ms. Huston didn't hear this and she came right up to the door at the time of the alleged rape. When they were leaving the house, this girl says that she left the room alone. Ms. Huston spoke to her, and she said hello in return. Nothing about a rape said.

And let's go back a moment to these two independent witnesses. They were asked a number of questions about this girl. Both women indicated that they saw the girl and judged her to be in her late teens, possibly even twenties. Ms. Huston's testimony was even more interesting. I don't remember it exactly now but the gist was that the girl appeared to her to be one of those girls that was trying to hook up with an important director. The other woman, a caretaker, indicated the same thing, that the girl looked like she was interested in the director.

The girl's mother was an actress. She did not go with the girl to the two photo sessions. Further, she spoke to her daughter on the phone after Polanski asked her to call and the girl assured her she was fine.

(to be continued)

0

CuddleFish Sept. 30, 2009 @ 1:25 a.m.

Here's the wrap-up (at last!):

Now, Polanski suggests in his testimony that the girl was willing, and seductive. He claims he did not force her into doing anything against her will. He freely admitted that he had used bad judgment.

You know, I hadn't even read the facts in the case and I pretty much knew this is what I would find; what I didn't know was that there had been two female witnesses in the home who were entirely supportive of Polanski's version of events. I'm saying it didn't look good for the victim's credibility, and I'm saying any defense attorney could have shredded her, and I'm saying she and her mother knew it, and that if she wanted a career in modelling or in Hollywood, she couldn't bring charges against Polanski, especially if she knew she was going to lose. Let's face it, the only thing the DA had going for him was her age. No way they would have prosecuted if this was an adult female! But Polanski was running the risk too, you never know what a jury will do and that was some serious time. I think that the way the case resolved was exactly what I would have done if I had been the attorneys and judge in the case. As a matter of fact, according to the documentary, the attorneys on both sides, defense and state, wanted probation! It was the judge who insisted on a psych eval which apparently was really only to give the appearance of some incarceration and punishment. This sham about finding out Polanski was having an affair with a 15 year old when he was awaiting sentencing and therefore was going to tack on fifty years was just ridiculous. First of all it was an unsubstantiated rumor, second out of his jurisdiction, and third, so what if it was true? What did that have to do with the findings of the case before him???

Just my thoughts on the matter.

0

SDaniels Sept. 30, 2009 @ 1:30 a.m.

Great job, Fish! Thanks for reading for me--hopping around trying to finish grading, and haven't had time yet for it.

I have one question, and surely you can answer it:

Did the girl inform Polanski of her age, and did he admit knowing she was underage?

0

CuddleFish Sept. 30, 2009 @ 1:39 a.m.

You know, I wondered the same thing too, but there's no mention of it that I saw, or maybe I missed it. I mean, it may or may not have mattered at trial, but in the end, he admitted to unlawful intercourse with a minor so that's admitting he knew, as a matter of law, I believe (SP will correct me if I'm wrong).

0

SDaniels Sept. 30, 2009 @ 2 a.m.

Hmm, and who knew how he came to confess, exactly. I'd like to know what physical 'evidence' there is, if anything. SurfP isn't acting like a defense lawyer--I'm pretty sure he is a prosecutor, or a civil trial lawyer. I hate to ask, since you have done so much work, but was there physical evidence, for whatever it would be worth in the 70s?

0

CuddleFish Sept. 30, 2009 @ 2:27 a.m.

Oh, I forgot to mention that, thanks for reminding me!

The physical evidence:

After the event, the girl left the house and waited in the car then Polanski took her home and dropped her off. She supposedly was telling her boyfriend what happened and the family overheard and the mother called her accountant, I forget how the rest goes but anyway eventually the authorities were called and the girl was taken to the hospital.

Now they did a rape exam and guess what they found? Nothing!

Eventually the panties were tested with a special test which showed semen, but the semen was never tested to see whose semen it was, and remember the girl admitted to having intercourse.

Frankly, it was pretty much a he said-she said issue on the matter of rape or consensual sex. The only issue left to resolve, and the matter on which he eventually pleaded guilty was that she was a minor.

0

SDaniels Oct. 1, 2009 @ 1:19 a.m.

Wow, really not much to this case, then, besides a confession. Now, some are saying that the only charge he has to face now is for running, but it seems that he never did get formally sentenced. If he does have to face rape charges, then he needs to lawyer up but good--get himself a Johnny Con Man or a Bruce Cutler--no scratch that. Bruce Cutler apparently only does well on the East coast--practically kicked off Phil Spector's team--judge and jury hated his Mafioso style...

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close