Polanski moral equivocation makes me sick...

by avishai 100 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • snowbird
    I really think there must be something in the water out there in California.

    I do, too.


  • JWoods

    Pardon me, but didn't France also harbor that hippie leader who killed his girlfriend and bricked her body up into a wall in his apartment?

  • Mickey mouse
    Mickey mouse

    I didn't realise he sodomised her too. To me that makes it even more shocking - with a 13 year old child.

  • hamilcarr
  • hamilcarr


    Some articles note that Polanski wants the charges against him dropped because the judge engaged in misconduct. What's that about?
    In 1977, Polanski agreed to plead guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse. The presiding judge, Laurence Rittenband, was to decide Polanski's sentence after reviewing a report from the Probation Department and holding a hearing with attorneys for each side. All parties expected Polanski to get only probation.

    According to a recent documentary, Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney David Wells, who was not involved in the case, intervened with Rittenband. Wells thought Polanski was being cavalier about the charges against him and should serve time for his misdeed. (Wells showed the judge photographs of Polanski partying in Munich with his arms around two young women who Wells claimed were underage.) Rittenband seemed to be convinced and suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he would send the director to prison and order him deported. At that time, Polanski fled.

    While Wells was not himself an attorney of record in the case, he was a lawyer for one of the parties—the state of California. The California Code of Judicial Ethics (PDF) forbids judges to engage in ex parte communications—discussions where only one side is represented.

    There is no question that Rittenband violated the ethics code. The question of whether his conversations with Wells are sufficient grounds for dismissal of the charges against Polanski is an open question. There is very little law on the subject to guide the judge who's now presiding over the case. Outright dismissal is an exceedingly rare remedy for ex parte communications, especially when the communications came after the plea agreement was reached. It's far more common for the plea agreement to stand, with a new judge brought in to preside over the sentencing. The original judge could also face sanctions. (Judge Rittenband is deceased, so there's a good chance the unethical contacts will have no impact.)

  • hamilcarr
    So, people want to give him sympathy because he was a holocaust surviovor?

    Yes, that's the reason why the western world pardons Israel's war crimes.

    By the same token, they should have pardoned Eichmann, Mengele, etc.

    What Holocaust did they survive?

  • BurnTheShips

    Great. Another addle-brained Euro apologizing for child rapists. You guys are really not doing much for your image here.


  • hamilcarr

    Didn't know the word

    ad·dle (dl)

    v.ad·dled, ad·dling, ad·dles v.tr. To muddle; confuse: "My brain is a bit addled by whiskey" (Eugene O'Neill). See Synonyms at confuse. v.intr. 1. To become confused. 2. To become rotten, as an egg.

  • JWoods

    As disgusting as all this is, I have become convinced that he is probably going to walk. The only time served will be what he is now doing while they decide extradition.

    Dual standard of justice for the rich and famous...fact of life.

  • quietlyleaving

    an american fatwa?

Share this