Swiss arrest Roman Polanski on US request in sex case - Page 11 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

DieselAddict · #**151** 10-01-2009, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

RP wasn't just somebody. He was a known predator of young girls, and regardless, 13 is not old enough to be left alone at a photo shoot in Hollywood. Boy or girl. Doing that, and having a rape as the outcome ought come carry some punishment for the parent.

I strongly disagree. It's pure insanity to jail the parents just because they didn't watch their teen every minute. I'm glad you don't make the law as your opinions are quite radical.

cmbdiesel · #**152** 10-01-2009, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I think I have a good basic understanding of the legal system. I just don't know the details of this particular case. Again, did the judge sign off on the original 43-day sentence or was it just an agreement among the lawyers as you put it? If it's the latter, then there's nothing wrong with that. If it's the former, the judge basically broke his word which shouldn't happen.

There is no such thing as "the judge signing off" on sentencing. The judge, for good or bad, can seemingly agree with a plea deal, then do whatever he/she wants at sentencing. There are examples of both extremes, if you were to care to investigate - cases where the judge has imposed no sentence where the DA wanted lengthy jail time, and cases where the opposite is true. This is why there are sentencing hearings, so the judge can, after a plea or verdict has been entered, determine the appropriate sentence. The judge is the final arbitrator of these hearings, and is not bound by any form of agreement entered into by the DA. You seem to be operating under a flawed preconception of how the system works, and it clouds your reading of this particular situation.

aklim · #**153** 10-01-2009, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

As to the charges, it was already stated numerous times that the drugging charge was dropped, and as far as I know he never pleaded guilty to it.

I thought that sometimes they "drop" the less serious charges and go for the major ones?

cmbdiesel · #**154** 10-01-2009, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I strongly disagree. It's pure insanity to jail the parents just because they didn't watch their teen every minute. I'm glad you don't make the law as your opinions are quite radical.

Jeeezus.....hope you don't have girls.... Leaving a 13yo alone at a hollywood photo shoot, long enough for her to be drugged, liquored up and used like a piece of meat carries no responsibility for you??? Her parent did not leave her at the mall for chrissakes. I can only hope, for you and yours, that your approach never results in your child being hurt or abused. Parenting is a job that needs to be taken seriously, and neglect or abuse should carry repercussions. If you find that "radical", then so be it.

cmbdiesel · #**155** 10-01-2009, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I thought that sometimes they "drop" the less serious charges and go for the major ones?

Indeed...welcome to plea bargaining

aklim · #**156** 10-01-2009, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Again, did the judge sign off on the original 43-day sentence or was it just an agreement among the lawyers as you put it? If it's the latter, then there's nothing wrong with that. If it's the former, the judge basically broke his word which shouldn't happen.

I thought that was a psych eval?

As has been suggested, maybe the Oktoberfest carousing was NOT what the judge had in mind when he granted him release. In which case, when the judge got wind of it, he changed his mind.

aklim · #**157** 10-01-2009, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Indeed...welcome to plea bargaining

But that does NOT mean it didn't happen.

DieselAddict · #**158** 10-02-2009, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

There is no such thing as "the judge signing off" on sentencing. The judge, for good or bad, can seemingly agree with a plea deal, then do whatever he/she wants at sentencing. There are examples of both extremes, if you were to care to investigate - cases where the judge has imposed no sentence where the DA wanted lengthy jail time, and cases where the opposite is true. This is why there are sentencing hearings, so the judge can, after a plea or verdict has been entered, determine the appropriate sentence. The judge is the final arbitrator of these hearings, and is not bound by any form of agreement entered into by the DA. You seem to be operating under a flawed preconception of how the system works, and it clouds your reading of this particular situation.

Well, thanks for clearing that up.

Quote:

Jeeezus.....hope you don't have girls.... Leaving a 13yo alone at a hollywood photo shoot, long enough for her to be drugged, liquored up and used like a piece of meat carries no responsibility for you??? Her parent did not leave her at the mall for chrissakes. I can only hope, for you and yours, that your approach never results in your child being hurt or abused. Parenting is a job that needs to be taken seriously, and neglect or abuse should carry repercussions. If you find that "radical", then so be it.

And I hope if you have girls they won't grow up to hate you because of your overprotective paranoia and lack of trust in them. It's one thing to knowingly place your child in danger, and it's quite another to demand that any parent be jailed if their kid gets raped. And that's just pure insanity. No other way to describe it. Be careful what you wish for as one day you might get a taste of your own medicine.

t walgamuth · #**159** 10-02-2009, 06:02 AM

We don't know what was in the heads of the girl's parents. We don't even really know if they knew she was there, do we?

Parents who let their kids go into a bad situation knowingly are obviously guilty of some version of child neglect. Their responsibility though does not lessen the guilt of the rapist. He has free will too.

This thread would have died a peaceful death long ago if DA were not defending and making excuses for RP.

Gurkha · #**160** 10-02-2009, 06:10 AM

Let me see, some mutant, deviant parents offer me their thirteen year old girl for sex in exchange for money. Does that mean I loose all forms of humanity and stoop to their level and have sex with the minor. Then when the cops bust me, I make a not guilty plea citing that it was consensual as the parents had solicited their child. There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of vile behavior. So where do we draw the line here, any thirteen year old girl should be fair pickings, specially if one is close to family and has the trust. So in this case, father's friend who is considered like an uncle would be able to get access to the thirteen year old girl. Where does this all end?

MS Fowler · #**161** 10-02-2009, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Well, thanks for clearing that up.

And I hope if you have girls they won't grow up to hate you because of your overprotective paranoia and lack of trust in them. It's one thing to knowingly place your child in danger, and it's quite another to demand that any parent be jailed if their kid gets raped. And that's just pure insanity. No other way to describe it. Be careful what you wish for as one day you might get a taste of your own medicine.

Parenting involves protecting your children. Many parents do not recognize the dangers that they allow for several reasons--sometimes, its simply that "they are good kids", and have their parents' trust, sometimes its mere wishful thinking. Parenting is NOT doing what makes the child "happy"; its using the maturity of the parent to prevent dangerous situations.

Jim B. · #**162** 10-02-2009, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Do yourself a favor, study our legal system. The judge is NEVER bound by deals made between prosecutors and defense attorneys. And god help us if they were. Making sentencing decisions is solely the judges decision. Possibly if you had better understanding of the system under which he plead guilty, you wouldn't be such a strong advocate for him. He was not railroaded or coerced. He plead guilty thinking he would be getting a little slap on the wrist. Unfortunately for him, he couldn't keep it under control until AFTER his sentencing, Dumb-ass like you read about. Then, go figure, the judge catches wind of his further carousing, and decides an example needs to be made. The fact that he evaded our legal system for so long is not a mitigating factor in his guilt/innocence or in his sentence. In fact, his evasion should be another charge that would ensure his time behind bars exceeds his life span.

*NOW* all bets are OFF, so far as the NEW sentencing Judge is concerned.

The facts are changed drastically due to the fact the defendant has been on the run for thirty years.

The new sentencing Judge will look at whatever the supplemental Adult Probation report says, (and its recommended sentence, which carries great wieght with the Court)

And then he will sentence him to whatever he wants, keeping in mind the mandated California sentencing guidelines.

aklim · #**163** 10-02-2009, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

And I hope if you have girls they won't grow up to hate you because of your overprotective paranoia and lack of trust in them. It's one thing to knowingly place your child in danger, and it's quite another to demand that any parent be jailed if their kid gets raped. And that's just pure insanity. No other way to describe it. Be careful what you wish for as one day you might get a taste of your own medicine.

I don't see that as a lack of trust issue. At least not with the kid. Whether I trust my kid or not is different from whether I would trust someone else with my kid. I might trust my kid not to get into trouble. I cannot trust someone else not to force my kid into something they would rather not do. They are not demanding that the parent be jailed if something bad happens to the kid. They are saying that the parent is responsible because they didn't exercise due diligence. That is a totally different story.

DieselAddict · #**164** 10-02-2009, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I don't see that as a lack of trust issue. At least not with the kid. Whether I trust my kid or not is different from whether I would trust someone else with my kid. I might trust my kid not to get into trouble. I cannot trust someone else not to force my kid into something they would rather not do. They are not demanding that the parent be jailed if something bad happens to the kid. They are saying that the parent is responsible because they didn't exercise due diligence. That is a totally different story.

Due diligence is obviously subject to definition. I'm all for exercising it to a reasonable extent and I despise extremism in all forms. Cmb seemed to be saying that the parents should be jailed if their kid gets raped and they could have prevented it. Other than keeping your kid locked in a cage at home I don't see how a parent could guarantee their child's safety at all times.

DieselAddict · #**165** 10-02-2009, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Parenting involves protecting your children. Many parents do not recognize the dangers that they allow for several reasons--sometimes, its simply that "they are good kids", and have their parents' trust, sometimes its mere wishful thinking. Parenting is NOT doing what makes the child "happy"; its using the maturity of the parent to prevent dangerous situations.

It's a wise mix of both, rather than a mutually exclusive choice.