quote:

He was never tried because he plead guilty. He admitted his guilt, then fled jurisdiction. There was no trial in absentia.

quote:

I'm quite sure you meant to say...we cannot allow the emotions of the victim to trump due process....not the accused.But no matter.

quote:

Let me ask you this what if it is not simply a matter of emotion....but rather a stepping stone to pursuing civil judgements?

quote:

In an earlier post you chastised another poster for pointing out Polanski wasn't found guilty of rape......so here you are trumpeting legalities on the one hand ...while on the other you toss them aside to replace them with your own judgements......very curious,not to mention fucking convienent.

quote:

In this case the accused had every opportunity to face their accuser...had every opportunity to see the evidence arrayed against them...and chose not to.
There is no issue of injustice here....

quote:

except yours of course for slandering Polanski with a charge he has not been convicted of......due process and all that.

quote:

Now, how is any of that in absentia?

quote:

Fair enough, but the point is that they weren't denied the right to a trial, they just chose (or as has been suggested, were more likely told) not to exercise it. Given that this is the case, how are their, or anybody else's, legal rights being harmed by this? It's hardly Guantanomo bay, is it?

quote:

I also call O.J. Simpson is a murderer.

quote:

I hve no clue what "relisties" are...do you?
It has been "alleged" that Polanski gave drugs and alcohol to a teenage girl. It is alleged that he fucked her despite her repeted protests...he has never been convicted of the crimes you ascribe to him. Have you tried him in absentia?

quote:

This is bullshit, you are making your own claims of who does and doesnt get a right to the rights you claim to hold dear. Bin Laden is an indited criminal in the US, this entitles him to a trial. Yet here you are claiming he can be shot on sight, which goes against your own argument on peoples rights.

quote:

quote:

Fair enough, but the point is that they weren't denied the right to a trial, they just chose (or as has been suggested, were more likely told) not to exercise it. Given that this is the case, how are their, or anybody else's, legal rights being harmed by this? It's hardly Guantanomo bay, is it?

quote:

"Objection! Asked and answered, your Honor."

"Sustained."

This could only happen in the court of your mind and not anyplace where the legal profession is actully practiced.

H.

< Message edited by HunterS -- 11/7/2009 5:07:32 PM >

(in reply to Marc2b)

quote:

Read her account of what happened. Add to that the fact that he paid her off after she filed for a civil suit... even though he still hasnt paid her all of it... and tell me again how much of this is alleged. No one has tried him in absentia... even the public. He never denied giving her alcohol, drugs or using her repeatedly.

quote:

Unfortuantely, Marc, Italy is not one of the various States of the United States. You are attempting to extend a funamental principle of American law into another jurisdiction, as far as I can see, solely on your humanitarian concern for some notion of universal justice. Others in this thread have already pointed out that Italy and France, etc have a different legal code than the Common Law code of the UK and the US. That is already a given. I will not beat that dead horse.

I have not found any justification in your posts, Marc, for making this transfer from US Constitutional Law to Italian Law except to say it isn't right. It seems that Italy had every right to proceed with the trial in abstentia under their own code of criminal rights as was pointed out over and over again. Unless you can show a legal rationale such as a treaty, I am afraid your argument is little more than a foot stomping tantrum. And that's too bad. I agree with the principle but not with the application in this case. They should not have been tried in abstentia as a Universal principle, but there is no recognition universally of that principle. So, tough luck.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

Read her account of what happened. Add to that the fact that he paid her off after she filed for a civil suit... even though he still hasnt paid her all of it... and tell me again how much of this is alleged. No one has tried him in absentia... even the public. He never denied giving her alcohol, drugs or using her repeatedly.

Would you like to  read the account of my last date??? It would hold just as much relevency as her grand jury testimony.
Consequently all you have is a guilty plea to sex with  minor which at the time was a misdomeanor.

H.

quote:

On August 8, 1977 Polanski appeared in Los Angeles Superior Court and copped to a felony count of unlawful sexual intercourse. As seen in the below transcript,

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

Would you like to  read the account of my last date???

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

You miss the crucial point that they went to Italy, violated Italian Law, and were tried under Italian law. Trials in absentia are legal in Italy, so that produces two questions for you.

Do you think anyone, American or otherwise, has the right to go abroad, break the law, and not be held accountable by the law of the land ? IE when in Rome ect ect

I have already spoken to this point. Please reference post 54 of thise thread.

I recognize that other nations have their own laws - that is not the point. The point is: are those laws just? Do they protect or violate human rights? In Iran being homosexual can get you arested, thrown into prison, even exacuted. By your "reasoning," this is okay because, after all, it's their law. Bullshit. I recognize that I am utterly powerless to affect Italian law but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to call bullshit on it.

quote:

Next, how would you try someone who doesnt wish to appear in court, such as Bin Laden ?

By catching him (within legal means) and dragging his scrawney ass into court.

I'm not sure if Bin Laden is the best example for that, however, because he is more akin to a military commander who is violating accepted rules of war. Any attempt to capture him would be more akin to a military action than a police action - which means we can shoot the mother fucker on site.

A better example would be Ira Einhorn, the low life, piece of shit, who murdered his ex-girlfriend and shoved her body into a trunk in his closet. He fled to europe to avoid prosecution. He was tried in absentia. That was wrong. The charges simply should have been allowed to stand (there is, after all, no staute of limitations on murder) until such time as he could be located and returned to the United States for a proper trial. He eventually was found and returned (after much international legal haggling) to the States - so it can be done. Unfortunately his convition in absentia was upheld - it should have been over turned and a new trial granted. Then we could have convicted the evil shithead properly, with his rights - WHICH ARE ALSO OUR RIGHTS! - protected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

How many years has the U.S. been waiting to jail that child rapist, Polanski?

It is a strange world you live in where you can change the meaning of words to suit your own bias.
Polanski pled guilty to carnal knowledge of  minor not rape...so no mater how much you want it to be different it is not.

H.

quote:

quote:

On August 8, 1977 Polanski appeared in Los Angeles Superior Court and copped to a felony count of unlawful sexual intercourse. As seen in the below transcript,

The article points out that the probation report will be used to guide the judges' decission as to whether the case would be settled as a misdomeanor or  felony.
It also points out that if the judge departs from this protocol that Polanski's guilty plea may be withdrawn.

H.