Lucky... 0
Recommended Posts
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don't advocate what he supposedly did, but if you make a deal to avoid a trial, then it should be honored.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong:
Aren't most plea deals made with the guilty plea an exchange for reduction of charges (either in total number or degree of severity)?
And often with a recommendation of lower sentence from the prosecutor?
Polanski got six charges reduced to one (basically statutory rape). Although the prosecutor recommended no jail or prison time, the judge was still free to impose whatever sentence he saw fit.
The deal wasn't no prison time. The deal was six charges down to one.
I guess the judge is free to impose whatever he wants, but to go against a plea deal the prosecutor made stinks. You either go with the program or get the hell out.
It is the judge that presides over the courtroom, not the prosecutor...and I'm still amazed that you're making excuses for Polanski. There's no "supposedly"...even Polanski isn't saying that...
And I'm not surprised you're avoiding the pig we call Reagan pardoning the elitist pig we called Steinbrenner.
Or shall we talk GWB and Libby?
I see, some guys shoudl serve time, some skate based upon political affiliation.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteI'm still amazed that you're making excuses for Polanski. There's no "supposedly"...even Polanski isn't saying that...
I'm amazed that anyone can chastise someone for doing something wrong 30 years ago. But I guess there are those here that never did anything wrong and are first to judge others.
Nice to know there are still perfect human beings out there.
QuoteOkay, so you think there should be an expiration date for hideous crimes against kids then? All someone has to do is hide-out for a couple decades and all is well?
There are statutes for most crimes except murder/conspiracy. So yes, a person can hide out in the same jurisdiction unless there is a trial in absetia of course.
QuoteI'm not claiming perfection. I just happen to know first hand that there are consequences to actions.
Unless you are Steinbrenner, Libby, a cop who accidentally murders innocnent people and is real, real sorry, etc.
QuotePolanski was able to strike a bargain, and he pussied out. Now he's claiming his extradition is based on a lie....I take that to mean, his lie, when he said he'd follow a plea agreement (what he thinks might happen from a judge doesn't count as an excuse), and then skipped town.
The judge misled, disregarded prosecutor's wishes and psych eval, which was weird to order anyway.
Andy9o8 2
QuoteThe judge misled, disregarded prosecutor's wishes and psych eval, which was weird to order anyway.
Not weird at all. A psych eval is not an uncommon part of a post-plea/verdict, pre-sentence investigation in a sex crime, especially with a juvenile complainant.
Quote
QuoteOkay, so you think there should be an expiration date for hideous crimes against kids then? All someone has to do is hide-out for a couple decades and all is well?
There are statutes for most crimes except murder/conspiracy. So yes, a person can hide out in the same jurisdiction unless there is a trial in absetia of course.
Doesn't apply here - the statute of limitations is to the filing of charges.
> No he won't, he's as free as a bird.
So long as the bird doesn't leave French or $wiss soil.
Quote
That's why I have voted Dem, Repub and indep (Perot), am mostly left but am pro-guns and anti-Aff Action (current version).
And you? You've voted for how many Dems as CIC, congress? As I thought, did you just define yourself?
I answered that question before, but since it didn't meet your preconceived definitions, you blanked it out.
But good to see the reminder that you're a Perot voter. Did you do it twice?
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteThe judge misled, disregarded prosecutor's wishes and psych eval, which was weird to order anyway.
Not weird at all. A psych eval is not an uncommon part of a post-plea/verdict, pre-sentence investigation in a sex crime, especially with a juvenile complainant.
In this case it was, I believe, as Polanski was known. I realize knowing someone publicoy isn't the same as knowing them psychiatrically, but the judge was looking for a reason to senten c him longer when he gave the inferrence that it would be wrapped up.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote
QuoteOkay, so you think there should be an expiration date for hideous crimes against kids then? All someone has to do is hide-out for a couple decades and all is well?
There are statutes for most crimes except murder/conspiracy. So yes, a person can hide out in the same jurisdiction unless there is a trial in absetia of course.
Doesn't apply here - the statute of limitations is to the filing of charges.
> No he won't, he's as free as a bird.
So long as the bird doesn't leave French or $wiss soil.
Hence the reason I stated if he was tried in absentia - pretty clear.
Hey, France or Switzerland with millions is a prison I could endure.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote
That's why I have voted Dem, Repub and indep (Perot), am mostly left but am pro-guns and anti-Aff Action (current version).
And you? You've voted for how many Dems as CIC, congress? As I thought, did you just define yourself?
I answered that question before, but since it didn't meet your preconceived definitions, you blanked it out.
But good to see the reminder that you're a Perot voter. Did you do it twice?
Nope, just 92. So, list all the Dems you've voted for, or do you fit the definition you posted?
I didn't see your answer, shoot it again; we'll try not to let teh other conservatives see you try to slam the GOP criminals.
Quote
I didn't see your answer, shoot it again; we'll try not to let teh other conservatives see you try to slam the GOP criminals.
That approach is just as silly as when the anti gays ask why we don't advocate for polygamy or bestiality.
So how long after 92 did you finally admit to yourself that Perot was fucking nuts? Clinton was a slam dunk choice in that election.
Andy9o8 2
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe judge misled, disregarded prosecutor's wishes and psych eval, which was weird to order anyway.
Not weird at all. A psych eval is not an uncommon part of a post-plea/verdict, pre-sentence investigation in a sex crime, especially with a juvenile complainant.
In this case it was, I believe, as Polanski was known. I realize knowing someone publicoy isn't the same as knowing them psychiatrically, but the judge was looking for a reason to senten c him longer when he gave the inferrence that it would be wrapped up.
You're not correct. A pre-sentence investigation is SOP in almost all felony cases, and a psych eval is SOP in most PSIs involving a sex crime - again, especially an adult-on-juvenile one. The fact that Polanski was well known, or for that matter most any other factor, would not trump this SOP. I learned the the nuts & bolts of how a PSI is prepared in 1978; and I've dealt with ... well, quite a few of them in the 32 years since then. I really am quite certain about this.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote
I didn't see your answer, shoot it again; we'll try not to let teh other conservatives see you try to slam the GOP criminals.
That approach is just as silly as when the anti gays ask why we don't advocate for polygamy or bestiality.
So how long after 92 did you finally admit to yourself that Perot was fucking nuts? Clinton was a slam dunk choice in that election.
So you won't be telling us what you think of fascist Ronnie pardoning Steinbrenner? Yea, it's fun to run-n-hide, huh?
I was in transition politically, I always voted Dem since 80, then for some reason blamed the recession on them and would have voted for GHWB, but Perot seemed like a good change from 2-party. I voted for Dole in 96 and then entered college. A year later realized that most of the BS since teh GD has come from the Republican Party and hacen't voted R since. I voted all R in 94 with the R takeover of congress.
So. list all the D's you've voted for, or I guess we can say you defined yourself earlier.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe judge misled, disregarded prosecutor's wishes and psych eval, which was weird to order anyway.
Not weird at all. A psych eval is not an uncommon part of a post-plea/verdict, pre-sentence investigation in a sex crime, especially with a juvenile complainant.
In this case it was, I believe, as Polanski was known. I realize knowing someone publicoy isn't the same as knowing them psychiatrically, but the judge was looking for a reason to senten c him longer when he gave the inferrence that it would be wrapped up.
You're not correct. A pre-sentence investigation is SOP in almost all felony cases, and a psych eval is SOP in most PSIs involving a sex crime - again, especially an adult-on-juvenile one. The fact that Polanski was well known, or for that matter most any other factor, would not trump this SOP. I learned the the nuts & bolts of how a PSI is prepared in 1978; and I've dealt with ... well, quite a few of them in the 32 years since then. I really am quite certain about this.
A 42-day inpatient eval? Come on, it's usually a session or 2.
I actually took the time to read some of that...Polanski will get his...
No he won't, he's as free as a bird.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites