What rights are we talking about?
I’ve been kicking around Freddie’s post on Roman Polanski for a few days now, and I’m still not sure what to make of it. We went back and forth on Twitter without much of a resolution. I think the crux of his point is this:
I also have great reservations about how we can try him and maintain a full grasp on due process and rights of the accused. The physical evidence is in bad condition;the police who ran his case are mostly dead; the key witnesses are unlikely to cooperate, including the victim; and most importantly, and most concerning, for a democratic society, is that the judge and the prosecuting attorney conspired during the case.
The post is titled “We all love the rights of the accused until it’s someone we don’t really like,” and he has couched his argument in terms of due process violations. But I’m not sure what argument he’s making, exactly. First and foremost, Polanski has not been “accused” of anything; he has admitted what he has done. Leaving that aside, is Freddie arguing that we shouldn’t push for his extradition? Or that once extradited he shouldn’t be sentenced? Or that a mistrial should have been declared in absentia? Looking at the quote I pulled, it seems that he wants a trial.
Except that doesn’t make much sense because Polanski already had a trial. He plead guilty. He fled the country while awaiting sentencing. Even if the judge and a prosecuting attorney (not, mind you, the prosecuting attorney who tried the case but someone else from the DA’s office) did indeed consult about his punishment, that typically wouldn’t be enough to declare a mistrial and start over from scratch, as Slate’s Explainer explains. At the most, there’d be a new judge involved in determining sentencing and the judge involved in the ex parte communication would be reprimanded.
Which is, in essence, what we have here. A new judge has been brought in by the state to determine what punishment Polaski should receive were he to be brought back to the States. There’s no question of his guilt: He plead guilty. There’s no question that he fled the country to avoid punishment: That’s why he’s been scuttling around Europe these last 30+ years.There is no question that there was minor judicial misconduct: That’s almost never enough to vacate a guilty plea.
I guess my question, then, is this: What does Freddie deBoer think should be done with Roman Polanski?
Weekly Podcast
"Inside Washington Weekly"
Upcoming Events
Who We Are
How We Roll
- @TAC
- AmSpecBlog
- Andrew Sullivan
- Ann Althouse
- Brendan Conway – The 20% Risk
- Culture11
- Daniel Larison
- David Frum
- Democracy in America
- Deputy Dog
- Ezra Klein
- FP Passport
- John Schwenkler
- Julian Sanchez
- Kerry Howley
- Marc Andreesen
- Marginal Revolution
- Matt Yglesias
- Megan McArdle
- Polaris
- Postmodern Conservative
- Pundit Kitchen
- Rod Dreher – BeliefNet
- Ross Douthat
- Shadow Government
- Splice Today
- The American Scene
- The Becker-Posner Blog
- The Confabulum
- The Debatable Land
- The Plank
- The Washington Realist
- Washington Post Capitol Briefing
- Why Boys Fail
- Will Wilkinson
- xkcd
5 Comments - add your own
Will — September 30, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I don’t want to speak for Freddie, but I think one of our commenters said it best:
“Follow procedures, then hang him!”
Sonny Bunch — September 30, 2009 at 12:09 pm
But isn’t that what we’ve seen so far? The procedures are being followed, as far as I can tell.
Joe Tetreault — September 30, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I can only speak for me, the logical solution I see, is that he should be incarcerated to serve the time that the plea agreement stipulated (all 48 days) which would run concurrently with his trial for jumping bail or whatever they charge him with for his flight (not from prosecution) but from sentencing. Why his apologists fail to see this as a just outcome is beyond me.
Sonny Bunch — September 30, 2009 at 2:20 pm
You don’t think there should be an additional punishment for going on the lam for so long? That strikes me as overly optimistic. I’d be a little surprised if he got less than 6-18 additional months. Which is a number that, admittedly, has no basis in law. It’s just one I’ve seen tossed around.
Joe Tetreault — September 30, 2009 at 5:10 pm
If the law makes no distinction between going on the lam for three weeks or three decades, then there is no reasonable basis for giving him more time. First step, fulfill the plea-agreement he entered into of his own free will. Second, determine what punishment best suits his secondary crime. Six to Eighteen months is better than him walking for evading justice. I see no reason to be overly punitive, because the punitive measure would best be directed to the offense that he has already pleaded to. Patterico can contradict me, should he read my comment here, even if the LA County DA wants to vacate the agreement and then proceed to trial, there is no good strategy to get an appropriate punishment for what he did 30 years ago. There has been plenty of speculation about other victims of Polanski, but without more than internet scuttlebutt, the DA is (in my not so humble opinion) will take the one in hand and then go after the flight charge. I’m not specifically in favor of this scenario, but this is how the law is written. I don’t see much else as an alternative if people want justice, this is the best they are likely to get. And Polanski’s apologists should recognize, as Lt. Caffy told Cpl Dawson, six months, (”it’s a hockey season, Harold”) is not a terribly long period of time, especially if its in a minimum security club fed installation, which it will be. N.B. I’m not entirely sure if Caffy was referring to the regular season or the post season, which I suppose only seems like its six months when your team has not drunk from Lord Stanley’s Chalice since before Polanski was still just that Hollywood guy whose wife was killed by the Manson family. Your mileage may of course vary.