They finally caught Roman Polanski

[gravenewworld]

SHould he go to jail or was his case so mishandled he deserves to be off the hook?

[russ_watters]

Given the severity of the crime (drug induced rape of a 13 year old girl), I was pretty surprised with the leniency of his plea bargain and perhaps that's why he was worried it would fall apart and skipped the country. Regardless, he's using his celebrity to assist in being a successful fugitive. If he wants to argue the case should be dropped or he should just get "time served" as the deal apparently went, fine: but you can't be allowed to make that argument while continuing to break the law. He needs to be made to deal with the reality everyone else has to deal with.

....The ironic thing is that he may end up spending more time in jail fighitng extradition than he would have if he had come back to the US to accept his plea.

[TheStatutoryApe]

What was mishandled about his case? Last I knew he plead guilty and has not said otherwise since.

[Pengwuino]

I don't understand any of this. He's charged with raping a minor, pleads guilty to a plea bargin (which in my mind means he admits he raped a girl)... and he isnt suppose to spend time in jail? Maybe I'm not old enough to understand what in the world happened.

[Count Iblis]

He admitted to statutory rape, which is not considered to be rape in Europe:

http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/on-the-use-of-the-word-rape/

[russ_watters]

He admitted to statutory rape, which is not considered to be rape in Europe:

http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/on-the-use-of-the-word-rape/ I don't see your point. That article only quibbles about the wording distinction between "rape" and "statutory rape". Ok, so he's an alleged rapist and convicted statutory rapist. So what?
[edit]
I see you posted about it in another thread: I stand corrected on Honduras, but Polanski was awaiting sentencing for consensual sex with a 13 year old, not for rape. No, statutory rape is by definition not consentual. That's the whole point of criminalizing it! This is called "statutory rape" in the US. Now, in France the age of consent was 12 at the time, so it isn't (or wasn't) even a crime in France.

We could just as well start to arrest people who violated Iranian sharia law and extradite them to Iran. It is one thing to have extremist laws, it is another thing to expect decent countries to extradite people who violated such laws. I don't really know how extradition laws work, but the US has extradition treaties with both Switzerland and France. The US does not have an extradition treaty with Iran. :rolleyes: This is what the outrage in Europe is about.

Although the age of consent has gone up in European countries since the 1970s, you do not get long prison sentences for merely having sex with a minor. Why is "Europe" not outraged that Roman Polannski wasn't tried for rape? That's what our outrage is about in this thread.

Also, are you imply that France now has statutory rape laws that would apply in a case like this. So France had "outrage" enough to change their law but not "outrage" enough to condemn Polanski for violating it? Seems an odd thing for "Europe" to be "outraged" about. Of course! Children older than about ten can have sexual feelings. We have laws banning sex with children to protect children. But this is a very difficult issue. I think in the US you had a case where a teacher had consensual sex with a 12 year of boy. The teacher got pregnant and was sentenced to ten years in jail. After the teacher left jail they got married.

The whole idea that you can make a law that defines what is consensual or not is, i.m.o. ridiculous. Your personal opinion about how "consentual" should be defined isn't really relevant to how it is defined and according to the legal definition (then in the US, now in France), this sex was not consentual.

Beyond that, there is the issue of the crimes that were dropped: they were dropped in exchange for a plea bargain and so we will never know if they would have held up in court, but nevertheless, the charges and evidence exist for us to examine. Do you, as an individual who with powers of logical reasoning, actually believe that no coercion of any kind was used by Polanski, whether alcohol, drugs or social? They can have the ability to consent, it is simply that in different lawmakers have different laws in order to protect children. The law assumes that children below a certain age cannot consent, regardless of whether that is true or not from a scientific point of view.

The problem here is that rare cases in which the child obviously did consent cannot be treated different from a case in which a child was raped. Fortunately, this example is not one of those ambiguous examples where consent is a reasonable possibility (such as a 19 year old boy with a 17 year old girl in a long term relationship). In this case, the age difference, status of the two parties and the situation make the sex clearly coercive - even if we didn't already know she said "no".

[lisab]

He admitted to statutory rape, which is not considered to be rape in Europe:

http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/on-the-use-of-the-word-rape/

It should be common knowledge that when you are in Country X, you must follow Country X's laws, whether you agree with them or not...even if you're famous :rolleyes:.

Besides, he gave her alcohol and a qualuude, and she asked repeatedly for him to stop as he was raping her...she didn't consent, regardless of her age. So the "age of consent is 12 where I come from" argument is BS.

[Count Iblis]

Russ, Lisab, I do agree with the main points you are making. You have someone who drugged and raped a girl and it is wrong that this goes unpunished. I fully agree.

I think the main complicating factor here is caused by the way the US law works, which is quite different from how it works in Europe. Plea bargains, confessing to something in exchange for being sentenced for a lesser charge etc. are things that are quite alien to us.

[WhoWee]

Russ, Lisab, I do agree with the main points you are making. You have someone who drugged and raped a girl and it is wrong that this goes unpunished. I fully agree.

I think the main complicating factor here is caused by the way the US law works, which is quite different from how it works in Europe. Plea bargains, confessing to something in exchange for being sentenced for a lesser charge etc. are things that are quite alien to us.

Pleading guilty did complicate matters. He clearly thought he was above the law when he fled the country.

[russ_watters]

I think the main complicating factor here is caused by the way the US law works, which is quite different from how it works in Europe. Plea bargains, confessing to something in exchange for being sentenced for a lesser charge etc. are things that are quite alien to us. So what? How does any of that matter?

[russ_watters]

For reference, text of the current US extradition treaty with France, ratified in 1997: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_documents&docid=f:td013.105.pdf

I find it unclear on the issue of whether France should have extradited him based on the treaty, but I've seen in some links that France typically does not extradite its own citizens, treaty or not.

[mgb_phys]

Probably not relevant to this case but the US might not have an extradition treaty with the EU for much longer.
The current treaty with the UK from 2003 is being challenged in the european court by some UK hacker that broke into the pentagon looking for evidence of UFO coverups.
Apparently it requires the UK to hand over terrorists suspects without the US having to offer any evidence but bans the extradition of US citizen terrorists to the UK.

[CRGreathouse]

I'd like to see that change. I certainly think the UK should have the right to extradite US terrorists. Working out how to share evidence in a timely and secure manner is, of course, difficult; I hope that a good solution to that problem can be worked out as well. It would be useful, presumably, on both sides.

[mgb_phys]

I certainly think the UK should have the right to extradite US terrorists.
It's generally very difficult to extradite Americans for anything.
The terrorism part was introduced in the 2003 act to stop attempts by various peace campaigners to prosecute the USA for the Gulf war but it does mean a few Irish gentlemen that the Brits would like to talk to are currently safe in the USA.

[WhoWee]

Probably not relevant to this case but the US might not have an extradition treaty with the EU for much longer.
The current treaty with the UK from 2003 is being challenged in the european court by some UK hacker that broke into the pentagon looking for evidence of UFO coverups.
Apparently it requires the UK to hand over terrorists suspects without the US having to offer any evidence but bans the extradition of US citizen terrorists to the UK.

Do you recall the name of the hacker or have a link - I'd like to read the story.

[TheStatutoryApe]

Do you recall the name of the hacker or have a link - I'd like to read the story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6521255.stm
Its been a while since it originally happened and the story wasn't really all that big since he apparently did not get much information. It was only interesting in that he was able to hack pentagon computers.

Russ, Lisab, I do agree with the main points you are making. You have someone who drugged and raped a girl and it is wrong that this goes unpunished. I fully agree.

I think the main complicating factor here is caused by the way the US law works, which is quite different from how it works in Europe. Plea bargains, confessing to something in exchange for being sentenced for a lesser charge etc. are things that are quite alien to us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain
Plea Bargains do take place in other countries including European countries. Apparently the reason it seems odd or alien to some Europeans is that they have a different form of law that does not incorporate a 'plea'. In a civil law district the prosecutor must put on a case in all cases, the defendant can not plead guilty. Here in the US, regardless of any bargaining, a defendant may plead guilty and be sentenced right away without trial if they so choose. In many cases a guilty plea will result in lesser penalties since the defendant is obviously willing to admit fault. Plea Bargains allow the defendant to know for certain that they will be given such consideration for having admitted their guilt.

[Proton Soup]

Pleading guilty did complicate matters. He clearly thought he was above the law when he fled the country.

yeah, i think that's the biggest problem he has now, tbh. the FBI has a little thing about fugitives, they will chase a guy from now until eternity.

i've read that the victim wants the case closed, but it's really not about her anymore.

[Count Iblis]

So what? How does any of that matter?

Because the Swiss judges will have to look into this. Although extradition from Switzerland to the US seems to be a legal formality, in this case there may be some arguments that may convince the judges not to agree to extradition.

1) Polanski's age. In most European countries, age is a relevant factor for sentencing (or getting released on health grounds). In the US you typically don't get a lighter sentence based on age or health. So, if Polanski were likely to get a ten year jail sentence in the US, then given his age, that would be too harsh according to our standards.

2) Polanski's confession. If this is seen to be unreliable evidence here, then a new prosecution in the US based on that would be seen to be problematic.

[Borek]

If you have not noticed, that's what my entry in the current photo contest is:

http://www.bpp.com.pl/IMG/marcin_something_new.jpg

Anybody knows if pictures Polański took at this time are available somewhere on the web?

[Count Iblis]

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=8721650

PARIS (Reuters) - France's Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand questioned on Thursday whether film director Roman Polanski would get a fair hearing from the US justice system...

[mgb_phys]

PARIS (Reuters) - France's Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand questioned on Thursday whether film director Roman Polanski would get a fair hearing from the US justice system...
If he already pled guilty is there a trial?

[Galteeth]

If he already pled guilty is there a trial?

Actually I think there will be another trial, since evading law enforcement is a separate crime.

[Proton Soup]

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=8721650

Mitterand says lots of things. Mitterand is a jack***.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/hollywoodjew/item/does_jail_remind_roman_polanski_of_the_holocaust_2 0090929/

[Count Iblis]

The harsher the rhetoric from the US, the less likely it becomes that Polanski will be extradited.

[drankin]

The harsher the rhetoric from the US, the less likely it becomes that Polanski will be extradited.

The French can have him.

[pbadss]

Actually I think there will be another trial, since evading law enforcement is a separate crime.

They don't necessarily need to prosecute him for skipping out of the country. They have enough to sentence him for statutory rape, no?

[mheslep]

Russ, Lisab, I do agree with the main points you are making. You have someone who drugged and raped a girl and it is wrong that this goes unpunished. I fully agree.

I think the main complicating factor here is caused by the way the US law works, which is quite different from how it works in Europe. Plea bargains, confessing to something in exchange for being sentenced for a lesser charge etc. are things that are quite alien to us.

So what? How does any of that matter?

Not only does it not matter, it is not correct to say that plea bargains are alien to Europe.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2369772&postcount=206

[Count Iblis]

Not only does it not matter, it is not correct to say that plea bargains are alien to Europe.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2369772&postcount=206

They are alien to most of Europe, certainly in the extreme way there are used in the US.

[lisab]

They are alien to most of Europe, certainly in the extreme way there are used in the US.

You've said that several times, in contrast to what others have said. Do you have any documentation for this?

[Galteeth]

They don't necessarily need to prosecute him for skipping out of the country. They have enough to sentence him for statutory rape, no?

Well, if my understanding from the news reports is correct, he skipped town before the judge gave him his additional sentence.

[mheslep]

Hollywood has gone from simply out there to insane:
Miramax studio head Weinstein:
In an interview, Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing. He's not convinced public opinion is running against the filmmaker and dismisses the categorization of Hollywood as amoral. "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion," Weinstein said. "We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe."
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-polanski1-2009oct01,0,1755914.story

[russ_watters]

Because the Swiss judges will have to look into this. Although extradition from Switzerland to the US seems to be a legal formality, in this case there may be some arguments that may convince the judges not to agree to extradition. ....neither of those two thing have anything to do with your previous quote, which seems to me to be an irrelevant criticism of the US legal system. You seem to be implying that those things play a part in extradition hearings, but you haven't presented any information to imply that that is true - and I don't think it is! You've added more: 1) Polanski's age. In most European countries, age is a relevant factor for sentencing (or getting released on health grounds). In the US you typically don't get a lighter sentence based on age or health. So, if Polanski were likely to get a ten year jail sentence in the US, then given his age, that would be too harsh according to our standards. Polanski skipped-out on his sentencing. He hasn't been sentenced yet, so how can that be a relevant concern? Are you asserting that in deciding on extradition, the Swiss do/should consider the outcome of prosecution and sentencing? How can they do that without having a trial themselves? 2) Polanski's confession. If this is seen to be unreliable evidence here, then a new prosecution in the US based on that would be seen to be problematic. Are you asserting that the Swiss would/should base extradition on the predicted direction and outcome of a new trial that there isn't any reason to expect would happen anyway? How does that not sound silly in your head when you think it? The harsher the rhetoric from the US, the less likely it becomes that Polanski will be extradited.
Yet another throw-away one-liner. This is getting tiresome. You need to explain yourself here: What rhetoric and why would rhetoric outside a courtroom matter inside a courtroom?

Anyway, from what I've seen, very little has been said - rhetorical or otherwise - by US officials. Contrast that with France, where quite a bit of rhetoric has been flowing. The first reaction by the French foreign minister was that the arrest was "a bit sinister". "Sinister"? Really? Arresting a convicted rapist and international fugitive is sinister? The culture minister said he was "thrown to the lions"....well, the culture minister has a primary area of responsibility and it isn't the law, it is entertainment, so his bias should be obvious. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-09-28-polanski_N.htm?obref=obnetwork
Here's a commentary that I think accurately captures the basis of the French rhetoric on this:
At first sight, the reaction of France’s leaders may seem incredible.

After all, anyone in France convicted of a similar offence to the one Polanski committed — which, none of us should forget, is having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl — would face very severe punishment.
But for Polanski it is different — and, disturbingly, there are many reasons, both social and historical, to explain the privileged position he has enjoyed since he first arrived as a fugitive from U.S. justice.
The truth is that the French political establishment has never got used to the idea that its own members, les notables, are subject to the same laws as everyone else.
They do not always see the need to pay the same taxes as other mortals; many of them regard the public purse as their own; they believe the details of their private lives are sacrosanct — and if they get into trouble they expect to be protected by the forces of the state.
In this sense, the outrage expressed by Sarkozy and Frederic Mitterrand over Polanski’s arrest can be seen as the instinctive response of the French establishment, who are determined to look after one of their own. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1216804/Corruption-guilt-twisted-values--real-reasons-French-lionise-Roman-Polanski.html

Simply put, it is French snobbery.

And that is in addition to the irrelevant but endless stream of rhetoric from people in the entertainment industry.

That said, the French are now changing their tune: The French government has dropped its public support for Roman Polanski, saying the 76-year-old director "is neither above nor beneath the law".

The move follows a backlash against a campaign for Polanski's release, with several leading European politicians and cultural figures refusing to join. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8283707.stm

Perhaps after the initial knee-jerk snobbery reaction they are now realizing that -- 'hey wait a minute, why are we defending/harboring a fugitive convicted rapist?' Or the cynic in me might say that they are only bowing to international pressure. http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=8721650
That's not the rhetoric from the US you were talking about before, is it? That's rhetoric from France!

[russ_watters]

You've said that several times, in contrast to what others have said. Do you have any documentation for this? Agreed: Count_Iblis, in light of direct cited evidence to the contrary, you need to substantiate that claim or recind it. What you are arguing appears to be straightforwardly factually wrong: Misinformation.

[russ_watters]

My actual take on the situation:

It seems clear to me that there were some improprieties in the handling of the original trial. Note that these improprieties are not necessarily all - or even mostly - against Polanski. Based on the severity of the crime and my perception of the quality of the evidence/testimony against him, it looks to me like he got off unreasonably easy. The misconduct at the end between the judge and the prosecutor may simply be a reflection of concern over the unfairly lenient treatment he got. People (such as that idiotic French culture minister cited earlier) have pointed out that there was a "media circus" surrounding the trial and that it was to Polanski's detriment. Given the public support for Polanski in the entertainment industry today, I'd need to see some evidence of that to believe that he doesn't have it backwards (that the circus benefited him, not hurt him).

Polanski has continued to fight the legal fight almost continuously since he fled. Articles from February of this year talk about his attempts to get the case dismissed. Due to the mess that this case appears to be, I think the fairest thing to do would be to declare a mistrial, throw the first trial in the trash and start over from scratch. But I don't think Polanski would be in favor of that because it would expose him to the possibility of actually being held accountable for the full crimes he committed.

[Sorry!]

russ, you really enjoy a good arguement huh? :D 90% of threads I see you in you're involved in one somehow.

I like that, good man. haha :D.


I don't see why so much conversation has gone on about extradition though. If the Americans wanted him badly enough he would be in America right now. Extraordinary rendition the American government calls it. Who's going to stop them?

[Vanadium 50]

Hollywood has gone from simply out there to insane:

Had the victim been, say, Miley Cyrus, and had the perpetrator been some unknown, Hollywood would be screaming for his head on a platter.

[russ_watters]

russ, you really enjoy a good arguement huh? :D 90% of threads I see you in you're involved in one somehow.

I like that, good man. haha :D. :confused: :confused: The politics forum is where people debate politics. So yeah - I come in here to argue.

Caveat: there is another reason why people come in here: to make speeches.

I'm not big on making unsolicited speeches, so I'd say even more than 90% of what I do in here is arguing. And the amount of posting I do here ebbs and flows with the climate of the forum. When it drifts off into left field is when I feel compelled to come in and push it back toward the center.

And, of course, some issues I care about more than others. This one disgusts me. I don't see why so much conversation has gone on about extradition though. If the Americans wanted him badly enough he would be in America right now. Extraordinary rendition the American government calls it. Who's going to stop them? I'm not sure I follow you there: how would the US get him here "right now"? You seem to imply the FBI (or LAPD?) could just go grab him. The US doesn't have the power to arrest people in other countries except in war. Extradition is a legal process that necessarily involves paperwork before the arrest and hearings and challenges afterwards, before the extradition. It isn't necessarily a simple process.

[maverick_starstrider]

Um... Statutory rape IS the CONSENSUAL sex of a minor (past puberty) with non-minor. That's what it is. If it's not consensual then it's just flat out rape. That being said, by the victims testimony, she is clearly describing a rape.

[russ_watters]

Um... Statutory rape IS the CONSENSUAL sex of a minor (past puberty) with non-minor. That's what it is. If it's not consensual then it's just flat out rape. Sorry, that's just plain wrong. Rape is by definition not consentual and statutory rape is a type of rape. A subset. Read the dictionary definition and read the legal definition. Both have been discussed already. Here's more: The criminal offense of statutory rape is committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Statutory+Rape

The definition could not be more clear: consentual sex with a minor is not possible because minors are not capable of consent.

Also, pre or post puberty doesn't have anything to do with it, afaik. There is no separate law for sex with a 9 year old that's different for sex with a 13 year old. That being said, by the victims testimony testimony, she is clearly describing a rape. Yes, she described violent rape, but he pled guilty only to statutory rape.

[Sorry!]

:confused: :confused: The politics forum is where people debate politics. So yeah - I come in here to argue.

Caveat: there is another reason why people come in here: to make speeches.

I'm not big on making unsolicited speeches, so I'd say even more than 90% of what I do in here is arguing. And the amount of posting I do here ebbs and flows with the climate of the forum. When it drifts off into left field is when I feel compelled to come in and push it back toward the center.

And, of course, some issues I care about more than others. This one disgusts me. I'm not sure I follow you there: how would the US get him here "right now"? The US doesn't have the power to arrest people in other countries except in war. Extradition is a legal process that necessarily involves paperwork before the arrest and hearings and challenges afterwards, before the extradition. It isn't necessarily a simple process.

Even in the other forums... just an observation it's nothing bad your good at it.

And yeah I know the process of Extradition but America DOES 'kidnap' people and transfer them. There was a big thing about it with the European Council awhile ago actually. This does however mostly have to do with national security lol.

[Office_Shredder]

....neither of those two thing have anything to do with your previous quote, which seems to me to be an irrelevant criticism of the US legal system. You seem to be implying that those things play a part in extradition hearings, but you haven't presented any information to imply that that is true - and I don't think it is! You've added more: Polanski skipped-out on his sentencing. He hasn't been sentenced yet, so how can that be a relevant concern? Are you asserting that in deciding on extradition, the Swiss do/should consider the outcome of prosecution and sentencing? How can they do that without having a trial themselves? Are you asserting that the Swiss would/should base extradition on the predicted direction and outcome of a new trial that there isn't any reason to expect would happen anyway? How does that not sound silly in your head when you think it?

Potential sentencing is often taken into consideration when looking at extradition. The extraditing nation looks at what the other country wants the prisoner for, and what potential repercussions to the prisoner there will be, and then considers whether it is consistent with the laws/morals of their nation as well. A prime example is that some nations will not send prisoners to the US without a guarantee they will not be executed

[maverick_starstrider]

Sorry, that's just plain wrong. Rape is by definition not consentual and statutory rape is a type of rape. A subset. Read the dictionary definition and read the legal definition. Both have been discussed already. Here's more: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Statutory+Rape

The definition could not be more clear: consentual sex with a minor is not possible because minors are not capable of consent.

Also, pre or post puberty doesn't have anything to do with it, afaik. There is no separate law for sex with a 9 year old that's different for sex with a 13 year old. Yes, she described violent rape, but he pled guilty only to statutory rape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

First sentence. Consensual in the dictionary sense, as in "I consent". Not in the legal sense that government X has determined you are to immature to participate in political and judicial proceding therefore your opinion is void. I know there's currently a thread raging about this but I've always found the notion of a government body unilaterally convincing people who have had sex below a certain age that they have been victimized to be silly. If you don't feel victimized then who is the government to tell you that you are a helpless victim. And yes. In many countries "child molestation" is a much greater charge and only applicable to "children"

[russ_watters]

Even in the other forums... just an observation it's nothing bad your good at it. If you say so... And yeah I know the process of Extradition but America DOES 'kidnap' people and transfer them. There was a big thing about it with the European Council awhile ago actually. This does however mostly have to do with national security lol. I can't imagine the US would just go snatch someone in a European country. Do you have a link to the incident you are talking about? I've never heard of it.

[Office_Shredder]

If you say so... I can't imagine the US would just go snatch someone in a European country. Do you have a link to the incident you are talking about? I've never heard of it.

You don't remember that CIA case where they just grabbed someone from Italy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Extradition_and_abduction

Wikipedia has a list of cases of "unilateral" extradition such as it is

[russ_watters]

You don't remember that CIA case where they just grabbed someone from Italy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Extradition_and_abduction Yeah, I probably heard about that and forgot. Like I said in the previous post: Except in war. Also, though the Italian legal system indicted a bunch of CIA agents over it, they also indicted a bunch of Italian agents and the Italian press calls it a joint operation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Rapito_affair
Wikipedia has a list of cases of "unilateral" extradition such as it is To my point, that's a short list and only 3 on that list can be considered common criminals (and only one of those is by the US, by the DEA, from Mexico), the rest are spies or terrorists or otherwise related to war.

So the idea that someone like the FBI would just go snatch a guy like Polanski from France or Switzerland doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[Borek]

Yes, she described violent rape

I think we differ when it comes to understanding word "violent".

Is it a term applied for legal reasons, or just an adjective?

[TheStatutoryApe]

They are alien to most of Europe, certainly in the extreme way there are used in the US.
What is extreme about the manner in which it is used in the US?

edit: I must say that what I read about the lack of 'plea' in european civil law makes much more sense of Kafka's The Trial for me.

They don't necessarily need to prosecute him for skipping out of the country. They have enough to sentence him for statutory rape, no?
There are statutes of limitation. California has limitations for all crimes with a penalty less than life imprisonment or capital punishment. When a minor is involved the statute of limitations may be suspended until they are of age though I am not sure if that applies outside of civil cases. The fact that he was convicted may or may not effect the statute of limitations as well. In the end it is really easier to add fleeing sentencing to the charges so that the defense will have a harder time requesting dismissal and a harder time arguing to a jury that the crime is too old to punish him for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

First sentence. Consensual in the dictionary sense, as in "I consent". Not in the legal sense that government X has determined you are to immature to participate in political and judicial proceding therefore your opinion is void. I know there's currently a thread raging about this but I've always found the notion of a government body unilaterally convincing people who have had sex below a certain age that they have been victimized to be silly. If you don't feel victimized then who is the government to tell you that you are a helpless victim. And yes. In many countries "child molestation" is a much greater charge and only applicable to "children"
Ability to consent is rather important. The line may not be clear agewise but the law cannot afford to leave it to vagaries.

Also, pre or post puberty doesn't have anything to do with it, afaik. There is no separate law for sex with a 9 year old that's different for sex with a 13 year old.
Most places have laws that distinguish by age. Federal is apparently 12 and under for sex with a child as opposed to rape.

I think we differ when it comes to understanding word "violent".

Is it a term applied for legal reasons, or just an adjective?
Generally when a person has committed an act upon another by force or against their will it is considered 'violent'. The law takes a broad view of what is considered violent so that even though a person may not have beat someone and done obvious injury to them during the course of a rape the court may still consider forced penetration an act of violence in and of itself. Unfortunately there will still be the issue of proving that it was forced which is difficult with out any evidence of injury. In Polanski's case he apparently qualified under three categories of rape. She was under age, he gave her drugs that reduced her ability to resist or make an informed decision, and he apparently forcibly penetrated her against her will since she said 'no' but she was too intoxicated to put up resistance.

[Count Iblis]

You've said that several times, in contrast to what others have said. Do you have any documentation for this?


I'll look into this. In the country I live in, plea bargain doesn't exist and would be a non-starter if it ever were to be proposed. And I don't live in Scandinavia, so msheslep is wrong about his claim that outside of Scandinavia plea bargains do exist.

[Count Iblis]

Are you asserting that the Swiss would/should base extradition on the predicted direction and outcome of a new trial that there isn't any reason to expect would happen anyway? How does that not sound silly in your head when you think it?


I agree with Office_Shredder:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2374562&postcount=41

The Swiss judges will take into account what Polanski will face in the US and see if that falls within the bounds of what is seen to be reasonable.

[Count Iblis]

What is extreme about the manner in which it is used in the US?

The big difference between the sentences you can face when you confess or don't confess. Also, the fact that so much bargaining about what to confess on in exchange for lighter sentences can go on at all.

[russ_watters]

I think we differ when it comes to understanding word "violent".

Is it a term applied for legal reasons, or just an adjective?
For legal reasons. Legally, physical force, threat of physical force, and drugs are all in the same category.

Even as a loosely applied adjective, though, I would think that it would make sense that using drugs to lower someone's physical and emotional resistance is a form of physical force.

[russ_watters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

First sentence. Consensual in the dictionary sense, as in "I consent". The quote in the wiki article is: The phrase statutory rape is a term used in some legal jurisdictions to describe consensual sexual relations that occur when one participant is below the age required to legally consent to the behavior. So it is consentual sex with someone who is legally incapable of consent? That's an obvious logical contradiction that just means they had some trouble explaining the concept. It's like when a dictionary definition uses the word in its own definition. The definition I posted is better because it explains the concept without the contradiction.

Regardless... Not in the legal sense that government X has determined you are to immature to participate in political and judicial proceding therefore your opinion is void. I know there's currently a thread raging about this but I've always found the notion of a government body unilaterally convincing people who have had sex below a certain age that they have been victimized to be silly. If you don't feel victimized then who is the government to tell you that you are a helpless victim. And yes. In many countries "child molestation" is a much greater charge and only applicable to "children" Ok, so your objection here really is that you don't like the idea of having a legal definition of "statutory rape" at all. Well fine, but that definition exists and we're discussing reality in this thread. I'm not interested in how this case would go based on how you think the law should work - I'm interested in how this case will go based on how the law does work.

We can discuss why there should/shouldn't be a statutory rape in another thread.

[russ_watters]

I agree with Office_Shredder:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2374562&postcount=41

The Swiss judges will take into account what Polanski will face in the US and see if that falls within the bounds of what is seen to be reasonable. One of the criteria for extradition in the treaty I linked is legal compatibility, which means the countries must have legally compatible laws. A noteable example where that doesn't exist is with capital punishment, as Office_Shredder noted. Yes, it does happen that with capital punishment cases, negotiations may be made to ensure that the death penalty is not on the table.

This is not a capital punishment case and both Switzerland and France have compatible laws with the US on rape. So whether Polanski is to get freed on probation or retried for rape and sentenced to 20 years in jail simply isn't relevant to the extradition request/process.

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1285/Guilty-Plea-Plea-Bargaining-comparative-perspective.html

It seems that plea bargaining is a hot topic in Europe. I'm finding many papers on it but unfortunately most of them I can not access without subscription.

It seems rather odd to me that in a system of law that requires a trial there are no negotiations to increase the expediency of the trials.

[Count Iblis]

This is not a capital punishment case and both Switzerland and France have compatible laws with the US on rape. So whether Polanski is to get freed on probation or retried for rape and sentenced to 20 years in jail simply isn't relevant to the extradition request/process.


The judge does not purely rule on the law here. If the judge feels that a 20 year's sentence is likely in the US and that 20 years for a 76 year old person for this crime would be way too harsh then the extradition may not go ahead, despite what the law says.

In the US, judges are far more contrained by the law in the way they can rule.

[mgb_phys]

It seems rather odd to me that in a system of law that requires a trial there are no negotiations to increase the expediency of the trials.
I think it's perceived as altering the impartiality of the judges/trial process if it means that political and financial considerations come into it.

There used to be a 'offences taken into account' in Britain where a criminal would admit to other crimes and the police would make a statement in court emphasising his contrition and asking for a lighter sentence. Naturally this was abused to the point that every house breaker caught would automatically admit to every other unsolved robbery on the police's books and they could report a 100% cleanup rate.

[Galteeth]

I think we differ when it comes to understanding word "violent".

Is it a term applied for legal reasons, or just an adjective?

In this particular case, the girl was not a willing participant, hence the rape was a violent act. I believe that it what the poster means.

[mheslep]

I'll look into this. In the country I live in, plea bargain doesn't exist and would be a non-starter if it ever were to be proposed. And I don't live in Scandinavia, so msheslep is wrong about his claim that outside of Scandinavia plea bargains do exist.That is the third time you've claimed such, and still no backup.

[Borek]

Generally when a person has committed an act upon another by force or against their will it is considered 'violent'.

For legal reasons. Legally, physical force, threat of physical force, and drugs are all in the same category.

Even as a loosely applied adjective, though, I would think that it would make sense that using drugs to lower someone's physical and emotional resistance is a form of physical force.

In this particular case, the girl was not a willing participant, hence the rape was a violent act. I believe that it what the poster means.

According to Webster: rape - any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. What does "violent" change then? Isn't "violent rape" a pleonasm?

[mheslep]

What is extreme about the manner in which it is used in the US?...Just FYI, I think plea bargains are abused in the US, especially since a relevant supreme court ruling several decades ago. I reject the claim though that plea bargains don't exist in Europe.

Very good background reference:
Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.
That is, the main argument is that plea bargains, when abused, effectively deprive us of our constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv26n3/v26n3-7.pdf

[maverick_starstrider]

Plee bargains save tons of money and get a criminal to jail (albeit for a shorter time) right away instead of a court case that could literally last decades.

[maverick_starstrider]

The quote in the wiki article is: So it is consentual sex with someone who is legally incapable of consent? That's an obvious logical contradiction that just means they had some trouble explaining the concept. It's like when a dictionary definition uses the word in its own definition. The definition I posted is better because it explains the concept without the contradiction.

Regardless... Ok, so your objection here really is that you don't like the idea of having a legal definition of "statutory rape" at all. Well fine, but that definition exists and we're discussing reality in this thread. I'm not interested in how this case would go based on how you think the law should work - I'm interested in how this case will go based on how the law does work.

We can discuss why there should/shouldn't be a statutory rape in another thread.

Dude, it's not a matter of how the law "should" be, that's how the law IS. Statutory rape is a DIFFERENT crime than normal rape and comes with significantly less severe punishment because the "lack of consent" is due to a legal technicality not the dictionary definition. If you force yourself upon a 13 year old that's just regular rape according to the law. It's only statutory if there was consent in the "dictionary" sense.

[mheslep]

Plee bargains save tons of money and get a criminal to jail (albeit for a shorter time) right away instead of a court case that could literally last decades.Be that as it may, saving money does not justify the elimination of the right to a trial by jury.

[maverick_starstrider]

Be that as it may, saving money does not justify the elimination of the right to a trial by jury.

Well it's a bargain. No one is making you take it. But if you do go through the courts and you lose the punishment will be worse. You're not losing the "right" to anything.

[mheslep]

Well it's a bargain. No one is making you take it. But if you do go through the courts and you lose the punishment will be worse. You're not losing the "right" to anything.Spurious. There are plenty of parallel examples in speech rights, where the government or groups have attempted oppressive tactics against free speech that didn't explicitly take the right away, but the courts have reasonably said these tactics created 'chilling' effects and threw them out.

Take for instance your ability to post on the net. Suppose in a US where court had not so acted, that I (as speech Czar) say go ahead and post what you will, but if I don't care for it, I will generally investigate your background, have the IRS run an audit on you, have the EPA check to make sure you never washed a paint brush in the sink, see if you have unpaid parking tickets. And even if this all comes back squeaky clean, BTW I'll be notifying your university that all of these investigations are ongoing. (All of that is analogous to the pressure a prosecutor can apply for a plea). Mind you I am not taking your 'right' to post here, go right ahead, but 'no one is making you' post either. It's your 'bargain'.

The courts have rightfully prevented this kind of thing for happening with speech, but somehow plea bargains have been treated differently and received a pass.

[Choronzon]

Spurious. There are plenty of parallel examples in speech rights, where the government or groups have attempted oppressive tactics against free speech that didn't explicitly take the right away, but the courts have reasonably said these tactics created 'chilling' effects and threw them out.

Take for instance your ability to post on the net. Suppose in a US where court had not so acted, that I (as speech Czar) say go ahead and post what you will, but if I don't care for it, I will generally investigate your background, have the IRS run an audit on you, have the EPA check to make sure you never washed a paint brush in the sink, see if you have unpaid parking tickets. And even if this all comes back squeaky clean, BTW I'll be notifying your university that all of these investigations are ongoing. (All of that is analogous to the pressure a prosecutor can apply for a plea). Mind you I am not taking your 'right' to post here, go right ahead, but 'no one is making you' post either. It's your 'bargain'.

The courts have rightfully prevented this kind of thing for happening with speech, but somehow plea bargains have been treated differently and received a pass.

That's why you have the right to an attorney, and to even be charged with a crime the prosecutors have to convince a grand jury that there is cause to do so. You also have the right to offer up your own litigation if you feel you've been wronged. The government can't make everyone's life perfect, but they can give you legal redress, which Polanski had.

[Count Iblis]

That is the third time you've claimed such, and still no backup.

And I now claim this for the fourth time:

Plea bargains do not exist where I live.

And I will not bother to back this up. I have better things to do than waste my time on that.

[Galteeth]

Spurious. There are plenty of parallel examples in speech rights, where the government or groups have attempted oppressive tactics against free speech that didn't explicitly take the right away, but the courts have reasonably said these tactics created 'chilling' effects and threw them out.

Take for instance your ability to post on the net. Suppose in a US where court had not so acted, that I (as speech Czar) say go ahead and post what you will, but if I don't care for it, I will generally investigate your background, have the IRS run an audit on you, have the EPA check to make sure you never washed a paint brush in the sink, see if you have unpaid parking tickets. And even if this all comes back squeaky clean, BTW I'll be notifying your university that all of these investigations are ongoing. (All of that is analogous to the pressure a prosecutor can apply for a plea). Mind you I am not taking your 'right' to post here, go right ahead, but 'no one is making you' post either. It's your 'bargain'.

The courts have rightfully prevented this kind of thing for happening with speech, but somehow plea bargains have been treated differently and received a pass.

I know this is off topic, but do they? I would argue that in a society with so many laws where, practically speaking, everyone is breaking SOME law, the process you speak of is quite common (although it's usually on a more local scale, not a federal czar).


Practical example: White forty-somethings don't loiter. Only blacks, punks, people under the age of 30, etc., loiter. (Although the law isn't written this way, it's enforced this way, and generally understood to be the case.)

[WhoWee]

I know this is off topic, but do they? I would argue that in a society with so many laws where, practically speaking, everyone is breaking SOME law, the process you speak of is quite common (although it's usually on a more local scale, not a federal czar).


Practical example: White forty-somethings don't loiter. Only blacks, punks, people under the age of 30, etc., loiter. (Although the law isn't written this way, it's enforced this way, and generally understood to be the case.)

I guess you haven't been to the golf course lately?:confused: I'm not sure where you are going with your example - it is off topic.

[TheStatutoryApe]

According to Webster: rape - any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. What does "violent" change then? Isn't "violent rape" a pleonasm?
Its because the law also accepts the view that having sex with a person who is unable to give informed or uninfluenced consent, although they may participate willingly, is also rape. So underage people who are influenced into having intercourse with an adult willingly through perhaps some form of subterfuge or implied threat is rape. And if you give someone a drug which renders them unable to use proper decision making skills but pliant and willing to have sex this is also rape. There is also rape by threat of violence as opposed to violence itself.

Just FYI, I think plea bargains are abused in the US, especially since a relevant supreme court ruling several decades ago. I reject the claim though that plea bargains don't exist in Europe.

Very good background reference:

That is, the main argument is that plea bargains, when abused, effectively deprive us of our constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv26n3/v26n3-7.pdf
I see that this can be the case in some instances but I do not know that this is all that common. I have been to court a few times and saw several plea bargains made as a matter of course, none of which seemed coercive. In fact I received one myself. Had I not I would have gone to jail. Had I been in a civil law court I would have spent what ever amount of time going through the process of being convicted by trial (with out a jury) and then sent to jail.

Be that as it may, saving money does not justify the elimination of the right to a trial by jury.
As already pointed out a plea does not take away your right to a trial by jury. It maintains your right and gives you the option rather than foisting your rights upon you. There may be room for abuse which could lead to a person being tricked into giving up their right to a trial by jury but there is room for abuse in any system and the occasional abuse does not constitute "elimination of the right to a trial by jury". Its like saying that since some police officers beat suspects with their baton police carrying batons is an elimination of the right of suspects to not be beaten.

Spurious. There are plenty of parallel examples in speech rights, where the government or groups have attempted oppressive tactics against free speech that didn't explicitly take the right away, but the courts have reasonably said these tactics created 'chilling' effects and threw them out.

Take for instance your ability to post on the net. Suppose in a US where court had not so acted, that I (as speech Czar) say go ahead and post what you will, but if I don't care for it, I will generally investigate your background, have the IRS run an audit on you, have the EPA check to make sure you never washed a paint brush in the sink, see if you have unpaid parking tickets. And even if this all comes back squeaky clean, BTW I'll be notifying your university that all of these investigations are ongoing. (All of that is analogous to the pressure a prosecutor can apply for a plea). Mind you I am not taking your 'right' to post here, go right ahead, but 'no one is making you' post either. It's your 'bargain'.

The courts have rightfully prevented this kind of thing for happening with speech, but somehow plea bargains have been treated differently and received a pass.
The DA and police use all sorts of methods to coerce and intimidate suspects. Why throw out a useful tool that can be beneficial to both the courts and the defendant just because it may be abused by some rather than root out the abuse itself which will likely just take a different form in absence of the particular tool?

[Galteeth]

I guess you haven't been to the golf course lately?:confused: I'm not sure where you are going with your example - it is off topic.

1. Admittedly, it was. My point was in reply to the example about freedom of speech. When there are so many laws, even if a particular action is legally protected, authorities can always find some other law you may be breaking to discourage you.

The "loitering" example is a real phenomenon. I have never seen a police office order a crowd of white forty year olds to disperse simply for standing around, hanging out, but it happens all the time to other groups.


2. Why throw out a useful tool that can be beneficial to both the courts and the defendant just because it may be abused by some rather than root out the abuse itself which will likely just take a different form in absence of the particular tool?

In general, history has shown that a tool then can be abused WILL be abused. If you don't throw out cases for violations of some principle, authorities will routinely violate the principle because it doesn't matter. (Think about unreasonable searches. If evidence produced from an illegal search was admissible, law enforcement would just always search, there's no reason not to.)




Since this was a bit of tangent, I won't mention this further, but if you'd like to discuss the general concept I would reply to a new thread.

[Borek]

Its because the law also accepts the view that having sex with a person who is unable to give informed or uninfluenced consent, although they may participate willingly, is also rape. So underage people who are influenced into having intercourse with an adult willingly through perhaps some form of subterfuge or implied threat is rape. And if you give someone a drug which renders them unable to use proper decision making skills but pliant and willing to have sex this is also rape. There is also rape by threat of violence as opposed to violence itself.

From the confessions of the victim that I have read (links posted by Lisab, although I don't think it was in this thread) I would say then that it was a rape, but not a violent rape.

Basically what I am aiming at is that I have a feeling word "violent" is being abused - and it is a more general problem, not limited to the Polański case. I have seen it in Polish, seems like it is also present in English.

[WhoWee]

1. Admittedly, it was. My point was in reply to the example about freedom of speech. When there are so many laws, even if a particular action is legally protected, authorities can always find some other law you may be breaking to discourage you.

The "loitering" example is a real phenomenon. I have never seen a police office order a crowd of white forty year olds to disperse simply for standing around, hanging out, but it happens all the time to other groups.

2. Why throw out a useful tool that can be beneficial to both the courts and the defendant just because it may be abused by some rather than root out the abuse itself which will likely just take a different form in absence of the particular tool?

In general, history has shown that a tool then can be abused WILL be abused. If you don't throw out cases for violations of some principle, authorities will routinely violate the principle because it doesn't matter. (Think about unreasonable searches. If evidence produced from an illegal search was admissible, law enforcement would just always search, there's no reason not to.)

Since this was a bit of tangent, I won't mention this further, but if you'd like to discuss the general concept I would reply to a new thread.

I'm not disagreeing with the observation in total. However, I've observed the police engaging white 40 year-olds in a similar manner after sporting events, around the closing time at bars, at various street parties, etc. I do agree the police don't typically target 40 something white males. If you'd like to start a thread, I'll participate.

[TheStatutoryApe]

From the confessions of the victim that I have read (links posted by Lisab, although I don't think it was in this thread) I would say then that it was a rape, but not a violent rape.

Basically what I am aiming at is that I have a feeling word "violent" is being abused - and it is a more general problem, not limited to the Polański case. I have seen it in Polish, seems like it is also present in English.

I understand. Its not a traditional usage of the term and it may seem to muddy the idea of what violence is. Legally it is used to distinguish between rape that is done without proper consent versus rape done to a person against their willful resistance (if not physical resistance) which easily makes sense to me. Not all legal definitions are quite the same as traditional definitions as Mav has suggested. At the same time I find it hard to not consider a person penetrating me anally against my wishes to be a form of violence. While it does not have the same seeming as punching, kicking, or stabbing and it seems to define sex as a form of violence itself I would have a difficult time finding another way to describe it.

[Count Iblis]

Statutory rape also applies when consent was obtained fraudulently, see here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994417.stm)

In the state of Florida rape is defined as sex without consent, and since my consent was procured fraudulently it's not valid. The judge agreed and awarded me $27m

[TheStatutoryApe]

Statutory rape also applies when consent was obtained fraudulently, see here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994417.stm)

Ok, now that's just ridiculous.

[Jasongreat]

Ok, now that's just ridiculous.

That is way beyond ridiculous! I wonder why they say the US is a litigious society.

[SW VandeCarr]

That is way beyond ridiculous! I wonder why they say the US is a litigious society.

There's no limit to the absurdity of litigation in the US. Read this:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/03/apple-lawsuit-you-cant-sue-a-dream-but-you-can-sure-try.ars

People like this can act with impunity because of the unlimited right to sue and have your "day in court" without consequences for outrageous abuses of the system. I think this post is somewhat on topic since it deals with sexual misconduct (in the plaintiff's dream). Suites like this tie up courts and deny timely access to people with legitimate claims.

[Galteeth]

There's no limit to the absurdity of litigation in the US. Read this:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/03/apple-lawsuit-you-cant-sue-a-dream-but-you-can-sure-try.ars

People like this can act with impunity because of the unlimited right to sue and have your "day in court" without consequences for outrageous abuses. I think this post is somewhat on topic since it deals with sexual misconduct (in the plaintiff's dream). Suites like this tie up courts and deny timely access to people with legitimate claims.

While I agree with our basic point, the example you provided is of a person who is literally delusional. Generally, people who are literally insane do in fact haver their lawsuits dismissed out of hand.

The dream thing was referring to the plaintiff's self-dismissal, esentially a recognition by the plaintiff that he had in fact imagined the whole thing.

[SW VandeCarr]

While I agree with our basic point, the example you provided is of a person who is literally delusional. Generally, people who are literally insane do in fact haver their lawsuits dismissed out of hand.

The dream thing was referring to the plaintiff's self-dismissal, esentially a recognition by the plaintiff that he had in fact imagined the whole thing.

Since it's drifting off topic, I won't belabor the point, but the the fact that a disturbed person can file bogus lawsuits against thousands without fear of consequences reveals a serious problem in the US system of justice. This person has been doing this for years and the system apparently can't stop him because of his "inalienable right to sue". Every suit activates the judicial machinery and requires victims to get lawyers and go to court to respond to the suit. Besides, in cases alleging sexual misconduct, it's not always clear the suit is without merit and can be dismissed.

[Galteeth]

Since it's drifting off topic, I won't belabor the point, but the the fact that a disturbed person can file bogus lawsuits against thousands without fear of consequences reveals a serious problem in the US system of justice. This person has been doing this for years and the system apparently can't stop him because of his "inalienable right to sue". Every suit activates the judicial machinery and requires victims to get lawyers and go to court to respond to the suit. Besides, in cases alleging sexual misconduct, it's not always clear the suit is without merit and can be dismissed.

Ok, just one thing, while i don't necessarily agree, the theory is that if you took away his right to sue, such an individual could routinely have his civil rights violated by others with no means of legal recourse.

[Borek]

Ok, just one thing, while i don't necessarily agree, the theory is that if you took away his right to sue, such an individual could routinely have his civil rights violated by others with no means of legal recourse.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions :wink:

[SW VandeCarr]

Ok, just one thing, while i don't necessarily agree, the theory is that if you took away his right to sue, such an individual could routinely have his civil rights violated by others with no means of legal recourse.

Other countries do not have this problem. In Canada and the UK, the losing plaintiff pays court costs and sometimes the legal fees of the defendant if the suit is judged to be frivolous. This in no way denies the plaintiff future access to the courts. I would further say that victimizing innocent people with bogus lawsuits is also a violation of the rights of victim defendants de facto if not de jure.

[jambaugh]

Does anyone know what kind of sentence Polanski could face for fleeing the country aside from the rape?

[TheStatutoryApe]

Other countries do not have this problem. In Canada and the UK, the losing plaintiff pays court costs and sometimes the legal fees of the defendant if the suit is judged to be frivolous. This in no way denies the plaintiff future access to the courts. I would further say that victimizing innocent people with bogus lawsuits is also a violation of the rights of victim defendants de facto if not de jure.
In the US you can counter sue for costs in many cases but not all. This depends on the specific laws in the state where you are being sued. Unfortunately it is not much of a deterrent for anyone who is broke and unstable. You may be ordered to pay the defendants costs but if you have no money its rather a moot point.

Does anyone know what kind of sentence Polanski could face for fleeing the country aside from the rape?
He could face charges of "fleeing prosecution" though I am unaware of the exact laws and charges this constitutes. In the news they usually just say "fleeing justice/prosecution".