Sep 29, 2009 at 16:24:06
“Bluesea, the question is did he rape her or not. I find it hard to believe that you are choosing to focus on the judge or other extraneous facts in this case.”
bostonian02116 on Sep 29, 2009 at 19:18:15
“The question is not whether or not he raped her. Roman Polanski agreed to a plea deal as did the Judge, prosecutor, and everyone involved. Then after Polanski served the 42 days the judge illegally reneged on the deal. So Polanski left to avoid illegal imprisonment. Even the prosecutor in the case said he would have done the same.
The constitutionally guaranteed due process of law is a very important part of democracy, and Polanski’s due process was violated.
Regardless of what everyone thinks the sentence should be, Polanski served his sentence which he agreed to. Blame Judge Rittenband for violating Polanski's right to due process if you think he didn't serve long enough.
I don't like this anymore than the next guy because It seems like the Polanski got preferential treatment back then like all of Hollywood. However, it seems the LA DA is trying to drag this through the media 30 years later because times have changed and they think public will be so outraged that they will want the court to disregard the law. Unfortunate as it may be, the judge screwed up and they have to live with this mistake.
Prediction: If Polanski is brought back to USA he will be given freedom because he has served his sentence.”
blueseas on Sep 29, 2009 at 17:26:10
“"I find it hard to believe that you are choosing to focus on the judge or other extraneous facts in this case."
Please consider seeing the HBO movie Roman Polanksi: Wanted and Desired
It isn't kind to Mr. Polanski - but should you choose to see it you will find that the judge (unfortunately) is not extraneous at all to this case.”
RedInGeorgia on Sep 29, 2009 at 16:43:11
“I will say upfront, I am not familiar with this case in detail, so I will only address comments posted here, and specifically your first comment, Ms. Mason:
You say here in comments, "the question is did he rape her or not." This implies this is an open question. Yet, in your article, you specifically call him a rapist by saying he plead "guilty for the rape" of this young woman. You can't have it both ways.
If it is correct that he fled the country prior to the court accepting the plea deal, we cannot say he "pled" to anything. He may have intended to plead to guilty of sex with a minor (which most people understand as statuatory rape). Stat rape may or may not be consentual, yet still be classified as "rape". Nonetheless, without a convition or an accepted plea agreement, there's no grounds to be sentencing him to prison.”
“Great. So glad that you've decided to take the post down. Given the high number of immigrants living, working, and contributing to the rich culture of New York City, your article makes light of the serious need for immigration reform not only in the state of New York, but at the federal level, and the complex problems facing Mexico—many of which have been co-created by the United States. It also promotes the worst kind of xenophobia.
The article also casts a bad light on the New York Women’s Commission and makes it difficult to believe that the Commission is working on the behalf of all women.”
whatisnaname on Apr 30, 2009 at 21:19:14
“It is not about Immigrants. It is about the illegal Immigrants.”