Not excusing him or anything but just wanted to set the record straight. Evidently, Polanski agreed to plead guilty to one of the charges in exchange for a mental evaluation for 60 days. After 42 days the facility agreed his evaluation was done. The judge, fearing public upheaval, decided not to honor the plea bargain and indicated he was going to give Polanksi jail time. When Polanksi got the news that the judge was not going to honor the terms of the plea bargain, Polanski fled.
Even if he came back, he would be sentenced under 1978 guidelines, not current guidelines.
Which is kind of interesting, when you look at how things have changed in the last 30 years.
He was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor.
Those charges were dropped when he plead guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
There is no statute of limitations governing the case because Polanski had already been charged and pleaded guilty in 1978 to having had unlawful sex with a minor. A complicating issue for resolution of the case is that failure to appear is in itself a crime.
The Plea agreement was that Polanski would only get probation after completing the psych evaluation. The Judge made it clear that he was going to reject the plea agreement and sentence Polanski to prison. I believe the judge made this statement to Polanski's attorneys prior to the sentencing hearing and after having had conversations regarding the matter with the district attorney without the defense attorneys present. Both conversations were "ex parte" communication, and this is why Polanski's attorneys are now trying to appeal on the basis of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The Judge should not have been having discussions concerning the case without both parties present.
I am really kinda of torn on the judge. On the one hand, he seems to have understood that a 13 year old girl was raped and that Polanski committed a sex crime and should be in prison. Although his concern seems to have been motivated by how he would look if he accepted the plea and not whether it was a just punishment. If he is an elected official, it might have gone badly in the next election. BUT he warned Polanski's people, like he was giving them a wink and a nod, so Polanski could skip town before the sentencing. (Why else would he have given them the head's up? And that is further evidence of judicial misconduct).
In 1978, juries found rapists "not guilty" because the woman was asking for it if she wore a mini skirt. (True story, out of Florida, I'll find the reference if anyone really wants it.)
In 1978, apparently sex with a child under 14 was a lesser offense then rape, and was punishable with probation. Technically, and only in the 1978 legal sense, he is not a rapist because he was not convicted of rape and did not plea to rape.
Under 2009 legal guidelines, not only is he a rapist, but he probably would have been charged with child pornography (he took pictures of her in various states of undress), providing alcohol to a minor (he gave her booze), drug possession, and sodomy. He would go to prison and have to register as a sex offender. (He won't have to do that even if he comes back and deals with this, as the sex offender laws are not retroactive and will not apply to him.)
Also, the extradition order has been outstanding since 1978. It's just that no one had tried to enforce it until 2002 when he was nominated for the Oscar. The DA has been actively trying to get him extradited ever since then.
I think it is very interesting how much things have changed in the last 30 years in terms of how rape is defined, how it is punished and how much better victims are treated today.
And just in case there are any doubts, I think he is a repugnant child rapist who should be flogged to death on Public Square, the mother was nuts for allowing the child alone with anyone during a photo shoot, and that people who claim it wasn't his fault because 1) he didn't know she was only 13 (like that's really hard to tell when your 44 looking at 13 year old) or that she was a seductive tramp trying to entrap him are insane. Even if that last bit were true, which if it was he wouldn't have had to drug her, it doesn't change the fact that he had a responsibility to say no to a 13 year old girl. Whether she said no or not, even under 1978 California law, she was incapable of providing consent.
