tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2086522799678977282.post929641435815346108..comments2023-12-26T08:22:44.107-05:00Comments on The Second Awakening: Rapist, International Fugitive Arrested: Media AghastC. L. Minouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249398357159535411noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2086522799678977282.post-20905887239677951642009-09-29T22:50:17.673-04:002009-09-29T22:50:17.673-04:00It's absolutely true that the judge wasn't...It's absolutely true that the judge wasn't bound to uphold a plea bargain; however, it is also true that they generally do, because otherwise the DAs have a nightmare on their hands, and the whole point of plea bargaining is shot down. Which may be a good or bad thing, depending on your philosophy.<br /><br />Though I agree with you, Moira, and according to Bill Wyman's Salon story, one of the reasons the judge got tougher is that the DA let him know that Polanski was carousing in Europe and making him look like a fool: http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2009/02/19/roman_polanski_documentary/index1.html<br /><br />(Caveat: Law and Order, according to a friend of mine who works in the Brooklyn DA's office, isn't that bad a simulation...and as a matter of fact, I think there was even an episode where Jack McCoy urged a judge to toss a too-lenient plea agreement ;)C. L. Minouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249398357159535411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2086522799678977282.post-61369790234862998892009-09-29T14:54:23.298-04:002009-09-29T14:54:23.298-04:00Polanski wasn't even indicted. He pled guilty...Polanski wasn't even indicted. He <em>pled guilty</em>. He skipped bail because he feared (I hope correctly) that the judge was going to reject the proposed agreement that would have had him plead guilty only to Unlawful Sexual Contact with a Minor and receive a ninety-day sentence, reduced to the forty-some days already served when he was being held for psychiatric evaluation. For those unfamiliar with how American criminal law works*, the judge is under <em>no</em> obligation to accept a plea deal -- those are worked out between the prosecution and defense -- and would have been entirely within his rights to demand an actual trial or a different deal.<br /><br /><br />*Note: The <i>Law and Order</i> verse is, shockingly, not a good source for such information.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01032500776429683299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2086522799678977282.post-17151542036109055742009-09-29T05:48:19.615-04:002009-09-29T05:48:19.615-04:00Thanks for this. It's no better in the UK. I T...Thanks for this. It's no better in the UK. I Tweeted yesterday: "So Polanski's finally been arrested, & evading the law for 31yrs is just a "legal headache"? Burn, Guardian, burn: http://tunyurl.com/y875r87 " - The Guardian being what was once an exemplary left-wing paper.<br /><br />I should write my own blog post about this, but got some hard deadlines this week. I'm sure it will continue to unfold in a sickening manner though, so maybe next week!Morag Eyriehttp://eyrie.typepad.com/morags_eyrie/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2086522799678977282.post-90435522308355145372009-09-28T23:05:54.278-04:002009-09-28T23:05:54.278-04:00And don't fall for that "statute of limit...And don't fall for that "statute of limitations" argument, either. While prosecutors are given a fixed amount of time to bring charges for most crimes, once someone is indicted that's it. In this case, Polanski had already pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentencing when he absconded.capricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06724714559985306062noreply@blogger.com