Do we have to minimize the Constitution to avoid "minimizing" rape?

[madmusic]

Apologists! Posters make that accusation over and over again. Please, hear me out.

If you read Polanki's plea bargain transcript, the court carefully ensures Polanski knows of his rights and "knowingly and intelligently" waives them. How important are these rights? Could it be that the more serious the charge, the more important the rights? If the fine is only $10.00 we may not think these rights are that important, but someone might think they are and appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court as a matter of principle.

Which leads us to Polanski. The New Yorker has a new article and let's, for the sake of argument, assume this is true:

Unlike some who minimize Polanski’s offense in arguing for his release, I am morally outraged and disgusted by the facts of his crime. Polanski didn’t flee judgment, however—he pled guilty to a crime, under a plea-bargain agreement. I would have had no problem with Polanski being found guilty, back then, of a more serious offense and serving a long jail term for what he did. But that’s not what happened; the prosecution didn’t seek any such sentence; it sought probation, Polanski pled guilty under those terms, and fled to France only after learning of Judge Laurence Rittenband’s plan (as detailed in the documentary “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired”) to override the agreement, after illegal consultation with another prosecutor uninvolved in the case, and imprison him for a long time.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2009/09/polanski-redux.html

(I realize the plea transcript clearly leaves discretion to the judge, but let's assume there was a verbal agreement consistent with the New Yorker claims. After all, the prosecutor at the time supports this version.)

So, if after giving up all his constitutional rights, should Polanski expect the court to uphold the deal on Constitutional principles? In other words, do we condone the manipulative stripping of constitutional rights through waiver only to trick the defendant into pleading guilty and then not live up to the bargain? Do you want courts doing this daily?

If you do condone this, the Constitution for all intents and purposes is meaningless and is every bit as dubious as a torture confession. But he raped a child! Does that mean we have to minimize the Constitution to avoid minimizing rape? Does it have to be either/or and black and white? Is there any common ground here? I think the New Yorker makes a good argument. What do you think?

[madmusic]

1. Deleted an aside

Don't want to sidetrack the issue.

[el_bryanto]

2. It is a strong but not completely persuasive argument

The prosecution should not have agreed to that plea bargain, which weakens the case in my opinion.

Bryant

[madmusic]

4. The article agrees you, but the prosecution did make that agreement

Which is the point. Should the state be able to sucker someone into giving up their rights?

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Crazy people don't think -- they just scream

This is why we have a legal system. There are too many people who abandon all rationality when a crime is committed, or even suspected.

Yep, even on a "liberal" website.

Here's the kicker -- out of every 100 people screaming for blood, I doubt that more than one knows the name of the victim (in whose name they are wailing). On the Internet, people can look this up easily, so it's impossible to use it as a challenge, but in real life, it's staggering.

It's like this every damn time -- a minimum of five days of sustained, high-octane "outrage". With the Polanski case, I can guarantee it will be with us for months, perhaps a year or more if it gets dragged out.

And yet, none of us have any connection with the resolution of the case, or any business dealing with it directly. It's a matter for the laws of three countries to resolve. And that's who will resolve it.

--d!

[madmusic]

5. But the screaming informs policy and lawmaking

So I'm asking how important constitutional principle are in the equation. Maybe for some they are vital and maybe others don't give a damn about the Constitution in some cases. But under the equal protection clause, the same laws apply to everyone.

[Dogmudgeon]

7. You're right. It informs them to not trust the people.

This is simply crazed-mob behavior, in a safe little on-line container. The particulars of the case involve a lot of "settled law" and a few points of international law that still remain to be argued. In the circumstances of the original legal action (e.g., the plea bargain), each side is entitled to ask for new (or more) judicial input.

Any "screaming mob" reaction is merely spectacle. Shame, not civic righteousness, attaches to it.

--d!

[EmilyAnne]

13. One out of sex American women have been victims of completed or attempted rape. Do you think that

maybe, just maybe, this strikes a cord with a lot of us because we have been victims or intimately know victims of rape?

No one is screaming for blood.

A lot of people are pissed off at the primitive thinking that this case has brought to the public forum.

Its shocking to see this bullshit in 2009.

[madmusic]

15. What bullshit?

If you disagree with the New Yorker, why?

[EmilyAnne]

20. This thread is calling out those of us who are angered by the "apologists." There may be a case

outlined in the New Yorker that is worth considering.

None of that excuses the many progressives who are apparently taking their cues from Deuteronomy.
The girl's appearance, her pervious sexual experience, her willingness to drink, her mother's pushy stage mother ways, etc.
All of these have been mentioned many times on this board and many other progressive boards.
That is the rape apology that pisses me off.

[redqueen]

Thank you for your posts in this thread.

I responded to the OP without calling out his conflating the "apologist" issues. I'm very glad that you did.

Thank you.

[madmusic]

26. I didn't call out anyone. They are responsible for "being call out."

The point was those, as you say, who are so concerned and angered by the apologists that they may lose site of the bigger picture, which is the point the New Yorker is trying to make.

[redqueen]

28. Fuck the bigger picture. Apologists need to be called out.

Period. Case aside.

Rape is not a crime to be made light of. That is a stone cold fact. The fact that you so easily brush that aside... well... hmmmmmm.

[Dogmudgeon]

41. Are you SURE you want to say that?

Re-read what I wrote. I am NOT impressed with the esteemed Mr. Polanski's behavior, to say the least, even in the presence of mitigating circumstances, all of which have been well-screamed-about.

I am, however, quite distressed at the high intensity and frequency of Sex Crime Frenzies (and Animal Crime Frenzies) here at DU. It just ain't right, not for a group of people who style themselves as Progressives.

But if you want to represent yourself as the Speaker For All Victims, you will find that I have had not one, but FOUR close friends who have been on the receiving end of violence, and that doesn't include my own near brush with death at the hands of a modern savage.

One of these incidents can be seen on TruTV (CourtTV) about four times a year, given a 13-week rerun cycle.

So: Been there. Done that. Wept, bled, moved on. And yet I am FUCKING TERRIFIED of showy public displays of violence, threatened violence, or even "play" violence that is the hallmark of the Internet Sex Crime Frenzy.

Mr. Polanski can and will face the consequences of his criminal history. Misconduct on the part of the LA District Attorney's office can be investigated and addressed. International law can be argued to settle the procedural disputes.

But Lynch Mob practice has no place among Progressives. The existence of crime pains us all, but it ought to lead to our renewed commitment to law and justice, not support of prison rape and other atavisms from our not-so-Edenic past.

--d!

[EmilyAnne]

43. Where on earth has there been any sort of call for violence against Roman Polanski?

Prison rape?
That's disgusting.
I haven't seen anything like that on Democratic Underground.
I'm not saying that no one posted such things, but I really haven't seen it.
What I have seen are countless posters excusing rape by blaming the victim and her mother.
That is what I call being a rape apologist.
I've also seen this editorialized in the Huffington Post.

I share your concerns about the internet sex crime frenzy.
To say that Roman Polanski should be brought back to the United States and face the music, so to speak, is not an example of it.
Its not calling for violence.
Its not the call of some angry internet lynch mob.

I am not the "Speaker for all Victims" but I sure as hell will call out people who dismiss the rape of a 13-year old girl as a "seduction."
If that distresses you, then you got problems.

[redqueen]

6. If the judge and prosecutor colluded illegally, declare it a mistrial and do it again. (nt)

[madmusic]

8. That is probably the state's plan

The California 2nd District just ruled that changes in the rules of evidence (what is admissible) does not violate the ex post facto clause. This is just what the prosecution needed to seek a warrant and prosecute. The state can introduce the victim's previous statements and get around the confrontation clause by saying she is unavailable. Now, it doesn't matter if the victim testifies or not.

This might be the real reason California is just now seeking a warrant. In opposition, Polanski will understandably try to seek enforcement of the plea bargain as agreed upon back then.

Then the question will be if he can enforce that plea bargain after failure to appear for sentencing. There are already a lot of tricky questions of law.

[redqueen]

9. There's a question of whether he can enforce that plea bargain after jumping bail?

Really?

I'd think it was impossible. Then again logic and the law aren't really closely related sometimes.

[madmusic]

23. I don't know. It would take some research.

But whatever the case law is it is very logically worded.

[redqueen]

27. Right. Of course it is.

That's why criminals who rape and molest often get such sickeningly short sentences... cause it's all so very logical.

Oh sorry, unless they're a minority. Then it could be a life sentence or even execution.

Very logical indeed.

[madmusic]

29. Courts strive to be a logical as you are...

But it ain't easy.

[redqueen]

31. LOL

You *must* be a white guy.

[EmilyAnne]

10. So, all of the people talking about how the girl looked older, that she should have known better,

that it was her pushy stage mother's fault, that she wasn't some virginal girl, etc, etc, etc were ACTUALLY trying to discuss the Constitution.

I see.

So, when the rape apologists are slammed, we are really slamming the Constitution.

[madmusic]

12. This isn't a bullshit thread.

No one made any of those arguments in this thread. Are you hoping they do so you can sabotage the subject? Wait, you already did.

[EmilyAnne]

16. You started out with the "apologists" line. You derailed the point you were trying to make right

there.

There have been many apologists for rape on this board and many other alleged progressive media outlets.
These apologists were not discussing the Constitution.
They were bashing the girl's appearance and sexual history.
They were blaming the girl's mother.
This is bull shit I was referring to.

[redqueen]

17. So very, very well said.

:thumbsup:

[madmusic]

22. Oh, you for the word "apologists" trumps any discussion of the Constitution

How convenient.

I didn't make any of these arguments so take it up with them. And if you read my previous comments in the same context, there were cowardly claims of "apologists."

So do you want to accuse me of being an apologist for discussing the Constitution or not?

[eShirl]

11. I always thought one plead guilty to a crime, not a sentence.

silly me

[madmusic]

14. What are you talking about? nt

[hedgehog]

18. Maybe the entire notion of plea bargaining should be discarded.

It's my impression that Polanski broke an unwritten but understood portion of the plea bargain by going to Oktoberfest and living it up instead of working on a film he was supposed to be making.

[madmusic]

32. Plea bargaining should be discarded

Was he was forbidden from going to Oktoberfest under the agreed conditions. Does anyone know for sure?

[hedgehog]

42. I would think that if you're getting a deal for a crime that would send most people

up the river for 50 years, keeping a low profile is an implied part of the deal.

[madmusic]

45. Here's another guy that should have kept a low profile

Key figure in Polanski documentary says he lied

A former prosecutor said Wednesday he lied when he told a documentary film crew that he advised a judge handling Roman Polanski's sex case that he should send the director to prison.

snip

Wells said he showed Rittenband a copy of a newspaper that pictured Polanski with girls at an Oktoberfest event.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/09/30/national/a051731D82.DTL#ixzz0Sf69dESq

[Odin2005]

19. Nobody is saying the fucker should not get a fair trial.

Apologist FAIL.

[EmilyAnne]

21. Well, hello there, my fellow "villager"! I agree. Its a fail. nt

[madmusic]

24. Apologist FAIL.? What does that mean?

Is it a cowardly way of calling me an apologist?

[redqueen]

33. Earlier you tried to claim that talking about those who minimize rape is not worth doing.

So yeah... think about it.

[madmusic]

34. Quote please?

[redqueen]

36. Right here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6665519&mesg_id=6666256

Yes, how dare they get distracted by sick assholes who would defend rapists? Clearly the important issue here is this case.

[madmusic]

37. Nice try. I thought you could chew gum and walk at the same time.

But was wrong. Maybe others can condemn the apologists and still value the Constitution.

As stated in the OP, it does not have to be one or the other.

[redqueen]

38. LOL... another FAIL.

I can condemn the apologists while defending the constitution. I just did, actually.

What you fail to comprehend is how YOU are now becoming an apologist, by claiming that shaming and slamming apologists is somehow less important than discussing this case.

[SIMPLYB1980]

25. The man is a fucking pedopile.

If you can take people wanting to see him rot in jail then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe join NAMBLA?

[redqueen]

30. No no no no... he's only an ephebophile.

Which is a very socially-acceptable thing to be.

[madmusic]

35. Where does your NAMBLA group meet?

Nevermind, no thanks, but you do have that right to free speech.

[Mixopterus]

39. mad, don't even bother

Once people get the red mist everything goes out the window, this is exactly why philosophy and law is wholly separated from the masses.

Mad never said he shouldn't be tried, many people who are unsure of this situation never suggested he shouldn't be tried. What we are talking about, however, is people's desire to undermine aspects of the law in favor of achieving a voyeuristic sense of moral gratification and extending the crimes of Polanski BEYOND what he is charged with and what he pleaded guilty to.

Additionally, I really have to question the intent of the folks who are screaming for blood. What are your intentions in this case? Do you want to see true justice achieved and the rule of law observed, or do you just want to make another human suffer and hurt? That is an important distinction in an ethical sense, and separates those who want justice from revenge seekers.

[madmusic]

40. Agreed. The thread went instantly hysterical.

2 : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess <political hysteria>

The merits be damned.

[Thickasabrick]

44. Thanks for the article - your post presents some very good points nt.

[madmusic]

46. It's didn't go over too well. Those pesky strawmen! nt

[Liquorice]

47. Polanski is a very wealthy man and he had top of the line legal counsel. There's

no way his rights were in danger of being violated.

As for that "illegal consultation with another prosecutor uninvolved in the case," that guy has since admitted to lying about the whole thing, so there goes that defense.