[Chongo]

Swiss arrest Polanski on US request in sex case.
YouTube - Swiss Detain Polanski on U.S. Arrest Request
Question: Should the US DOJ request Polanski's extradition, or should it rescind the 31 year old arrest warrant?

The Grand Jury testimony:The Smoking Gun: Archive

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Hmm...
Not sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, he's a rapist that's never fully paid for his crime mainly because he's famous. I mean, how does one really square this:

In 1977, he was accused of raping the teenager while photographing her during a modeling session. The girl said Polanski plied her with champagne and part of a Quaalude pill at Jack Nicholson's house while the actor was away. She said that, despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her.

She was (way) underage also, but the above is just straight-up rape in any case. He should have been rounded up years ago by authorities in whatever 'civilized' country he happened to be in, the same as they'd probably do for Joe Scumbag that did the same thing.

On the other hand... the victim settled for an undisclosed amount long ago. What justice is really served by going after the guy so long after the fact? Also is/was there a statute of limitations on the original crime? Or is this more about his fugitive status all this time?

[tooki]

I don't believe there is a statute of limitation on criminal cases.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by tooki 

I don't believe there is a statute of limitation on criminal cases.

It depends on the charge and the state. Although in this case, if I remember correctly, he was already convicted (plea bargain) and then fled the country. He still has a sentence to serve, regardless of how much time has passed.

[turtle777]

I'm not sure what side to take.

Let's leave his own persona out and just imagine this was a bad child raper, that they finally caught. Would anybody oppose the extradition ?

-t

[OreoCookie]

Plain and simple: if there is an extradition treaty between Switzerland and the US (and apparently there is) and assuming there is not statute of limitations on this particular crime, yes, by all means. He committed statutory rape and confessed, but he chickened out and fled the country. If he were John Doe, there'd be no discussion.

[Chuckit]

I'm pretty sure there is a statute of limitations on what he did, but that only applies to trying him. A runaway prisoner can't have his sentence thrown out just because he hid long enough.

Anyway, the victim herself wishes for people to leave Polanski alone, and I agree with her that it seems like it was some kind of temporary insanity on his part, so I can't say I'm particularly happy about this.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I agree with her that it seems like it was some kind of temporary insanity on his part, so I can't say I'm particularly happy about this.

Then he should have never entered the plea bargain that he did.

-t

[Gavin]

So far as I know, the statute of limitations does not apply if you've already been convicted.

He skipped the country after the conviction but before the sentencing, so technically he's not wanted for rape, he's an escaped convict. Again - no time limit on that.

What's weird about this is the story keeps changing. The lady involved has since said that her mother was right there and nothing really happened, mom later thought she could get money out of the famous guy, that the police intimidated her to exaggerate what happened, etc. Then later said that was not correct either and there was sex... (maybe because she got a huge settlement in private arbitration?) Who knows. He claims he pled guilty to spare the girl the embarrassment of testifying, etc. Remember, in most of the world rape is no big deal, so maybe he was expecting a slap on the wrist, and after the fact found out what he was really in for, especially with the judge under pressure to come down hard on the foreign celebrity. Also remember that this was not long after his wife was slaughtered by manson's people, the public sentiment was against him in that he was not perceived as "grieving right", everyone wanted him stomped on.
The pictures are real, so at the very least he's a perv.

Why is there no extradition treaty with france to cover this? It's not like he was in hiding.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Gavin 

Why is there no extradition treaty with france to cover this? It's not like he was in hiding.

He has French citizenship, so by the terms of our extradition agreement the French can decide not to give him up.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

He has French citizenship, so by the terms of our extradition agreement the French can decide not to give him up.

So all those years, the French chose not to ?

I guess he just didn't see this [the Swiss] coming

-t

[Shaddim]

He's a rapist who was found guilty and ran when it was time to sentence him. Just because he's a hero to the extreme Left doesn't mean he should get a pass for forcibly sodomizing a child. I've seen the moaning from certain circles all morning, but it doesn't change what he did.

[Chuckit]

He's not a hero to me. I don't even particularly like his movies. But I mean, it was more than 30 years ago. If he had fled earlier on, the statute of limitations would have run out while Tiffany was still popular. Even the victim is on Polanski's side. He wasn't even convicted of rape. Now it's many decades later and he's 75 years old. This just seems a bit vindictive in an unhealthy way to me.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

He's not a hero to me. I don't even particularly like his movies. But I mean, it was more than 30 years ago.

Thirty years he should have probably been in prison for rape, if you ask me. He stole something that can never be returned. The Holocaust was even longer ago - should crimes from that time also be forgotten because they happened long ago? I don't think that just because you manage to evade prison time for an extended period after doing a crime because you are wealthy and famous and you flee, there should EVER be some kind of standard were we don't apply the law as dictated once that person is captured.

ps. I really do like his films.

If he had fled earlier on, the statute of limitations would have run out while Tiffany was still popular.

I really do think that "statute of limitations" refers to the amount of time authorities can take to CHARGE someone. Once you are charged, there are no limitations. You can't just avoid going to jail and you never have to serve because you where effective in your evasion.

Polanski was charged and pled guilty of giving a little girl drugs and alcohol then forcibly engaging in intercourse and sodomy with her. He thought he was going to be able to take advantage of an unfair "celebrity" sentencing, letting him off with about a month in jail for his actions and decided when it was clear he wasn't going to get it that he was just too rich, famous and talented to pay for his crimes in the manner that everyone else would be forced to.

Even the victim is on Polanski's side.

So where many of Michael Jackson's after getting huge cash settlements to drop the issue. Not a very good reason to let him off after forcing anal sex on a little girl after drugging her. They didn't seem to think it wasn't that big of a deal when they went to the authorities when it happened.

Of course, after all this time and all the cash, the victim likely wouldn't be as concerned. We don't just punish people based on the wishes of their victims though. Otherwise, we'd seldom be able to punish people engaged in domestic violence.

He wasn't even convicted of rape. Now it's many decades later and he's 75 years old. This just seems a bit vindictive in an unhealthy way to me.

Justice doesn't have an expiration date. Polanski could have turned himself in years ago. He didn't have to wait until he was 75 to get caught in a country that had the guts to do the right thing. He was not only a rapist, but a criminal fugitive.

What other crimes has he engaged in over the years, with the pattern of not understanding proper boundaries and thinking he's above the law? I see nothing "unhealthy" about making people pay for their crimes when they run away regardless of the length of time it takes to catch them. They ALWAYS have the option of turning themselves in and getting their sentence over with. Polanksi would surely have been out of jail by now if he'd just served his sentence for the crimes he admitted committing.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Just because he's a hero to the extreme Left.................

More of your typical generalizations, which, as usual, have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[subego]

He should get nailed, even though Chinatown is one of my favoritest movies ever.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So all those years, the French chose not to ?

Correct.

I guess he just didn't see this [the Swiss] coming

Nobody ever does!

[osiris]

Not that I care at all, but this case will be tied up for years and never go anywhere - a multi-national extradition on a rape case from the 70's? ha. good luck.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Gavin 

So far as I know, the statute of limitations does not apply if you've already been convicted.

Good point, I forgot to take that into account.

Originally Posted by Gavin 

Why is there no extradition treaty with france to cover this? It's not like he was in hiding.

According to the original article, there is no extradition treaty between France and the US (which I find surprising to say the least). Does anyone know whether this is correct?

Originally Posted by news.yahoo.com

France has no extradition treaty with the U.S., and while he traveled throughout Europe, he avoided arrest in part because of lax policies on apprehending foreign fugitives.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Even the victim is on Polanski's side. He wasn't even convicted of rape.

I guess that's because he paid her hush money. Be that as it may, that should be taken into account at his hearing.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

According to the original article, there is no extradition treaty between France and the US (which I find surprising to say the least). Does anyone know whether this is correct?

That is incorrect. See: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/123746.pdf (page 101 in the PDF, page 91 in the document).

But it's irrelevant because Polanski is a French citizen.

[ThinkInsane]

Although the statute of limitations is a moot point in this case, he was charged and accepted a plea before he fled, I took a second to look it up. California changed the law in the 1990s to retroactively waive the statute of limitations on sexual crimes against a child. In this was overturned as unconstitutional. The current statute is ten years, but there is a loophole. It's ten years from when the victim reports it to the police. So if you were in Cali and bad touched a kid in 1989, and the kid in question went to the cops in 2009 and reported it, they have until 2019 to catch and charge your child molesting ass.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

That is incorrect. See: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/123746.pdf (page 101 in the PDF, page 91 in the document).

But it's irrelevant because Polanski is a French citizen.

Thanks for the info.
I'm surprised it took until 1996 to agree on an extradition treaty … and it went into force a full six years later, 2002. :wow:

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Thanks for the info.
I'm surprised it took until 1996 to agree on an extradition treaty … and it went into force a full six years later, 2002. :wow:

There may very well have been previous treaties that were superseded by the 1996 treaty. The document only lists treaties currently in force.

[stupendousman]

Here's the end all, be all:

He admitted to raping a child.

He spent like 4 weeks in jail and then left town when it was clear that his money wasn't going to buy his way out of "hard time" in a real prison.

He has nothing to complain about. He's had 30 years of living in luxury. On top of the rape he admitted to, he' also guilty of illegally fleeing the country in order to avoid incarceration. I hope he spends the rest of his life in jail for those two crimes, regardless of how talented he is.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

More of your typical generalizations, which, as usual, have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

It does, if you actually stop to think about the subject. The hard Left Hollywood types often get away with all manner of disgusting things just because they're popular and support social agendas. Maybe they throw money and resources at different "causes" just to ease their conscience?

Who are we kidding? He'll bride some European officials, they'll back out of extraditing him and he simply be required to stay in France for the rest of his life. I suppose that's almost enough punishment for anyone..

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The hard Left Hollywood types often get away with all manner of disgusting things just because they're popular and support social agendas.

Kinda like the Hard Right Catholic types getting away with buggering little boys. It's not because they're liberal or conservative, it's because justice favors the rich.

Also, if anyone wants to "punish" me by giving me a few million bucks and making me live in France... I'm a bad, bad boy. Punish me! Punish me!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Kinda like the Hard Right Catholic types getting away with buggering little boys. It's not because they're liberal or conservative, it's because justice favors the rich.

Also, if anyone wants to "punish" me by giving me a few million bucks and making me live in France... I'm a bad, bad boy. Punish me! Punish me!

Yup, they're one in the same. They use their money and influence to get away with sodomizing children. At least now you're seeing that your celebrity heroes are sh*tbags, I've known it for decades.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

Although the statute of limitations is a moot point in this case, he was charged and accepted a plea before he fled, I took a second to look it up. California changed the law in the 1990s to retroactively waive the statute of limitations on sexual crimes against a child. In this was overturned as unconstitutional. The current statute is ten years, but there is a loophole. It's ten years from when the victim reports it to the police. So if you were in Cali and bad touched a kid in 1989, and the kid in question went to the cops in 2009 and reported it, they have until 2019 to catch and charge your child molesting ass.

Interesting.

Tort law statute limitations in Canada generally run from when the claimant "knew or should have known" about the offence, but AFAIK there is now no statute of limitations for sexual assault cases in Canada, and that has not been overturned.

greg

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It does, if you actually stop to think about the subject. The hard Left Hollywood types often get away with all manner of disgusting things just because they're popular and support social agendas. Maybe they throw money and resources at different "causes" just to ease their conscience?

funny you should mention that. Check out this video: YouTube

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Here's the end all, be all:

He admitted to raping a child.

He spent like 4 weeks in jail and then left town when it was clear that his money wasn't going to buy his way out of "hard time" in a real prison.

Well, I just read some more details on a German news site (FAZ).

According to them, the original plea bargain entered said that he wouldn't have to spent more time in prison than the initial 42 days. So after he was let out of prison, he learned that the judge planned to change the prison terms, in spite of the reached plea bargain. That's when he fled the country.

If this was true, then I'd say he shouldn't be extradited.
If you enter a plea bargain, you should be guaranteed that the bargain stands. You shouldn't be subject to activist judges.
*Why* the victim agreed to that plea bargain, doesn't really matter.

Btw, what seems to be unclear is what kind of prison sentence is still open.
The California justice system seems to have a life of its own.

-t

[Chuckit]

Wow, that changes things. OK, before I thought this was more vengeance than justice, which I don't much like. But if he made a deal and we reneged on it, he was absolutely in the moral clear to call bullshit on that and walk away, and what the government is doing is highly unethical and probably illegal, not that there's anybody to punish them for it.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

At least now you're seeing that your celebrity heroes are sh*tbags, I've known it for decades.

What do you mean by now? I don't hero worship celebrities.

Well, except for Cate Blanchett; but that's not hero worship, that's more of an unhealthy lust.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, I just read some more details on a German news site (FAZ).

According to them, the original plea bargain entered said that he wouldn't have to spent more time in prison than the initial 42 days. So after he was let out of prison, he learned that the judge planned to change the prison terms, in spite of the reached plea bargain. That's when he fled the country.

If this was true, then I'd say he shouldn't be extradited.
If you enter a plea bargain, you should be guaranteed that the bargain stands. You shouldn't be subject to activist judges.
*Why* the victim agreed to that plea bargain, doesn't really matter.

Btw, what seems to be unclear is what kind of prison sentence is still open.
The California justice system seems to have a life of its own.

-t

Again, this is from memory, so I don't claim it as gospel, but he was supposed to spend the 90 days in prison being psychiatrically evaluated. He was released after 42 days. The judge ordered that he return to prison for the remaining 48 days. Polanski fled at that point. He's been a fugitive for justice for 30 years to avoid six weeks of jail time. It seems to me that anyone who drugs and rapes a child should be very pleased with a three month sentence. I'm pretty sure if it was Joe blow off the street that committed the same offense instead of a famous director, he would surely get more than a 90 day sentence for evaluation. I'm also fairly certain that many people defending this ********* wouldn't dream defending a regular, non-celebrity type of guy accused and convicted of the same crime.

The way I see it, he accepted the 90 sentence, and then decided it wasn't fair that he had to actually serve 90 days. Too bad. If you don't want a minor inconvenience in your life, don't rape kids.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

The way I see it, he accepted the 90 sentence, and then decided it wasn't fair that he had to actually serve 90 days. Too bad. If you don't want a minor inconvenience in your life, don't rape kids.

I guess the details are sketchy and not fully known.

The above linked article doesn't mention the 90 days. But they do state that there seems to be a lot of different information out there, and that it's hard to get a complete picture of what happened.

-t

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, I just read some more details on a German news site (FAZ).

According to them, the original plea bargain entered said that he wouldn't have to spent more time in prison than the initial 42 days. So after he was let out of prison, he learned that the judge planned to change the prison terms, in spite of the reached plea bargain. That's when he fled the country.

I'm pretty sure when it was learned that a rich celebrity was working a deal where he admitted to raping a child, then only spent about a month in jail, it caused quite a bit of uproar.

If you enter a plea bargain, you should be guaranteed that the bargain stands.

Wow...if that's the law, then he'd surely have a reason to appeal to a higher court while he waited in prison. If not, well...I guess he wouldn't have had to worry about any of it had he just not raped a child.

That's the way the law works. You can't just decide you don't like like what the judge you're dealing with has done, then just flee. There are procedures and legal proceedings you can engage if an officer of the court has done wrong. Polanski didn't do this because he knew that he wasn't going to get another celebrity sweetheart deal ensuring him he wouldn't have to suffer the same fate as all the other child rapists because he was rich and famous. He didn't want to do the time for doing the crime, so he hid from the authorities.

You shouldn't be subject to activist judges.
*Why* the victim agreed to that plea bargain, doesn't really matter.

He had other legal options. He choose not to prevail himself of those options because he likely knew the end result would still be the prison time he justly deserved, regardless of what one "activist judge" may or may not of done.

[quote]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Wow, that changes things. OK, before I thought this was more vengeance than justice, which I don't much like. But if he made a deal and we reneged on it, he was absolutely in the moral clear to call bullshit on that and walk away, and what the government is doing is highly unethical and probably illegal, not that there's anybody to punish them for it.

There is absolutely NOTHING that puts him in "the clear" since if there was misconduct, he could appeal. He raped a child. He has no moral right to "call bullshit" and walk away from the time he deserves to do. He did the crime, he can do the time. The question is "how much". If he has evidence that the person in charge of deciding "how much" has engaged in wrongdoing, he's quite capable of having his attorney's submit the evidence and let the law run it's course. He chose NOT to do things the legal way, he chose to do things the way it makes it easiest for him, only doing about a month for raping a child. He's WAY outside the moral "clear" since he not only hasn't done his time for his original crime, but he hasn't done any time for fleeing from authorities illegally.

42 days in jail for raping children simply is a joke. I'd even bet that I could find child molesters who we could arrange a "fair" deal to rape a child you love and only do 42 days and they'd probably take the deal no questions ask. Disgusting.

[Chuckit]

OK, let's see if I've got this straight. Your argument is: "It's OK for the government to go back on its word because I find the man disgusting"?

[ort888]

As a member of the extreme left just have to say that Polanski is not a hero of mine. I mean, he only raped ONE girl. If he wants to reach real liberal hero status he's going to have to rape a lot more people then that. I have high standards.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

OK, let's see if I've got this straight. Your argument is: "It's OK for the government to go back on its word because I find the man disgusting"?

Can you tell me what exactly the government went back on? I'm asking in all seriousness, because everyone keeps saying that, but no one can actually tell me what they went back on. The prosecutor can make a plea deal, but the judge has no obligation to accept that deal. Polanski could have withdrawn the plea and went to trial. He chose not to. Instead he fled because he thought he would get a harsher sentence than what he thought he should get.

I'm going to have to go to the library tomorrow and look this **** up. Trying to search on the internet just turns up tons of garbage and unsubstantiated opinion. I want to read the original articles from the time, since none of us appear to have very accurate information.

[Chuckit]

No, and I'm not claiming it happened. I'm talking about the idea of "if it hypothetically happened."'

To be honest, I don't feel certain at all what actually happened at any point of this, including whether or not she was raped. From a standpoint of what we can legally claim, it seems like she wasn't (since he was not convicted of that). Like I said in (I think) my first post in this thread, I'm not not any kind of expert on the subject. So pretty much everything I'm saying is based on various hypothetical premises.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, and I'm not claiming it happened. I'm talking about the idea of "if it hypothetically happened."'

To be honest, I don't feel certain at all what actually happened at any point of this, including whether or not she was raped. From a standpoint of what we can legally claim, it seems like she wasn't (since he was not convicted of that). So pretty much everything I'm saying if based on various hypothetical premises.

From what I've read today, the more serious charges such as rape and using pharmaceuticals to commit rape were the charges that were dropped as part of the plea deal. As far as I know, it was never a question of whether it happened or not, Polanski admitted that it did as part of his plea. Legally speaking, just the fact that he had sex with a person that could not give consent, even if she begged for it, meets California's legal definition of rape.

This is what the victim had to say about how it transpired:
"We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!", and then I didn’t know what else to do,” she stated.
Geimer testified that Polanski performed various sexual acts on her[ after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes. Specifically, Geimer's testimony was that Polanski kissed her, performed cunnilingus on her, penetrated her vaginally, and then penetrated her anally, each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.

I just clipped that from wikipedia, but there are plenty of citations in that clip. I don't have time to check them at the moment, I'm late for a dinner date.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ort888 

As a member of the extreme left just have to say that Polanski is not a hero of mine. I mean, he only raped ONE girl. If he wants to reach real liberal hero status he's going to have to rape a lot more people then that. I have high standards.

Yeah, he'd have to be like Clinton.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It does, if you actually stop to think about the subject. The hard Left Hollywood types often get away with all manner of disgusting things just because they're popular and support social agendas. Maybe they throw money and resources at different "causes" just to ease their conscience?

Who are we kidding? He'll bride some European officials, they'll back out of extraditing him and he simply be required to stay in France for the rest of his life. I suppose that's almost enough punishment for anyone..

You must read a lot of garbage news to continue to make such broad generalizations.

[Gee-Man]

Roman Polanski is a convicted child rapist. Nobody denies that, even Polanski himself. His arrest is perfectly justified, even after all these years. Being a gifted filmmaker doesn't change the fact that he committed a crime and never paid the penalty for it.

Left-right ideology has absolutely nothing to do with this. The reason Polanski hasn't been in jail has everything to do with money and celebrity, not left-right grandstanding.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So where many of Michael Jackson's after getting huge cash settlements to drop the issue.

These two situations are not the slightest bit similar. With Michael Jackson, he settled the civil case that was based on a substantial amount of unreliable evidence and witnesses. The state dropped the issue due to lack of evidence after that. In the criminal case, he was acquitted of all charges in a full and legal criminal trial.

As opposed to Polanski, who admitted his guilt, pled guilty, was tried and convicted, and when sentenced, fled the country.

[amazing]

There are certain crimes that cannot be forgiven, regardless of how far in the past.

This happens to be one of those crimes.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by amazing 

There are certain crimes that cannot be forgiven, regardless of how far in the past.

This happens to be one of those crimes.

Clearly it can be forgiven, as indeed his victim has.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Okay, I'm starting to suspect there's something in this for the Los Angeles DA's office.

Perhaps it's the fact that the state (run by complete nitwits) is broke, and is now in the position of releasing thousands of *current* criminals back onto the street in addition to being increasingly unable to properly process new offenders.

So perhaps they can distract from the likely resulting crime wave with another titillating celebrity case splashed all over the media, rather than any of that boring 'current' stuff. And seeing as how no celebs have knocked anyone off lately ala OJ, Blake, Spector, etc...

Just a hunch.

If there's a really stupid or bad idea anywhere to be found... it's a sure bet that California politicians are already tossing money they don't have at it.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You must read a lot of garbage news to continue to make such broad generalizations.

I don't read the news, it's too depressing.

"All important information is transferred into my brain via sources (MSNBC and CNN) that are sanctioned by the holy Obama (blessed be He). We all live and die by His mercy." - The Meat Popsicle Manifesto

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

These two situations are not the slightest bit similar. With Michael Jackson, he settled the civil case that was based on a substantial amount of unreliable evidence and witnesses. The state dropped the issue due to lack of evidence after that. In the criminal case, he was acquitted of all charges in a full and legal criminal trial.

Kind of hard to convict criminally when most all his victims were paid off to keep quiet. But the difference is that Polanski did actually admit what he did while Jackson did not.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

IIf there's a really stupid or bad idea anywhere to be found... it's a sure bet that California politicians are already tossing money they don't have at it.

...or it could be that there's an admitted child rapist out there that has never paid his debt to society and lots of people don't like the fact that he's been thumbing his nose at the law for 30 years.

I still can't comprehend how anyone could think it's a bad idea to get a child rapist who escaped justice due to his money and fame to finally have to pay the penalty for his outrageous and illegal behavior. There simply isn't any justification I can think of that makes any sense.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Okay, I'm starting to suspect there's something in this for the Los Angeles DA's office.

Perhaps it's the fact that the state (run by complete nitwits) is broke, and is now in the position of releasing thousands of *current* criminals back onto the street in addition to being increasingly unable to properly process new offenders.

So perhaps they can distract from the likely resulting crime wave with another titillating celebrity case splashed all over the media, rather than any of that boring 'current' stuff. And seeing as how no celebs have knocked anyone off lately ala OJ, Blake, Spector, etc...

Just a hunch.

If there's a really stupid or bad idea anywhere to be found... it's a sure bet that California politicians are already tossing money they don't have at it.

Are your thoughts predicated on what you would do in the same scenario?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Clearly it can be forgiven, as indeed his victim has.

Do victims of violent crimes forgive the perp because the perp deserves it?

I'd say, generally not.