[lbo-talk] Polanski

SA s11131978 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 30 16:26:25 PDT 2009


Dennis Claxton wrote:


> At 09:05 AM 9/30/2009, James Heartfield wrote:
>
>
>> The same judge had already abused his discretion by arranging to have
>> Polanski held in maximum security for 42 days before his conviction,
>> supposedly for a "psychological evaluation" that should have taken a
>> day or two.
>
>
> This is wrong and makes me suspect this whole summary. Polanski was
> sent for this evaluation after he pleaded guilty. This is routine.
> It's in the California penal code and can be up to 90 days (see below).

I think your sources are both garbling the story somewhat, having seen the documentary. Polanski specifically negotiated with the judge to serve the 90 days at Chico. Neither side anticipated that the evaluation would only take 42 days. When the evaluation was over, he had to be released from Chico. The psychiatrists recommended a sentence of probation and nothing more.
> One of the best summaries I've read about the legal aspects is from
> David Thomson. This is from the Guardian a couple days ago but it
> sounds familiar and I think maybe it was in Thomson's Biographical
> Dictionary of Film even before Polanski was arrested the other day:

This summary leaves a lot out. I can't quite recall every twist and turn of this byzantine case, and I'll probably get a few details wrong here, but a few points are worth mentioning. The plea bargain where all charges except illegal intercourse were dropped was supported by the victim and her mother. That sole remaining charge was in no way a token slap on the wrist - it gave the judge discretion to sentence him to up to 50 years hard time. However, again, the victim and her mother said specifically that they did not want Polanski to serve jail time. So the question was sentencing. At this point, the story becomes one of gross and ever-worsening misconduct by the utterly bizarre judge who cared about nothing but his media image. I'll leave out the incredible details about that guy.

The judge was determined that Polanski be seen to serve at least some time in incarceration, for the media and public opinion's sake. Polanski and his lawyer were amenable to this requirement, so a deal was reached (totally unethical on the judge's part, but RP was entirely at his mercy): it was agreed RP would be given a psych evaluation at Chico, a maximum security prison. All parties assumed this would last 90 days, and then provided Polanski wasn't found to be a "mentally disordered" pedophile, that would serve as his punishment. But it ended up lasting only 42 days, at which point the psychiatrists recommended only probation. The judge, upset at the negative media coverage, panicked and reneged on the whole deal.

Eventually, a new deal was reached, for something on the order of a month or two in county lockup. But now Polanski now has to show up to the sentencing. Keep in mind - Polanski is utterly at the mercy of an insane and mercurial judge who has already reneged on an explicit agreement, a judge whose behavior so outraged both Polanski's lawyer and the tough, straight-laced Mormon prosecutor that they got together and filed a joint complaint about the judge's illegal actions and the judge was taken off the case. If Polanski shows up to the sentencing, the judge has plenipotentiary power to condemn him to 50 years in maximum-security prison, where he'd most likely spend the rest of his life, and the pressure from the media is running in precisely that direction. The only guarantee against that outcome is the judge's keeping his word, which he'd flagrantly failed to do just before. Polanski's lawyer essentially advises him that in his place he wouldn't trust the judge. So Polanski fled. The prosecutor -- again, your classic California zero-tolerance type -- says in an interview, given the circumstances he was "not at all surprised" Polanski fled. He almost seems to say wordlessly: "I would have done the same thing."

I think, on balance, if someone who knew all the facts were asked by a desperate Polanski for help in fleeing, that person would have had more of a duty to help a guilty man in danger of suffering gross injustice than a responsibility to aid in a guilty man's punishment. The legal system had already subjected Polanski to various forms of retribution adding up to worse, probably, than the victim herself was seeking.

SA



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list