Originally Posted by
macslut
According to the New York Times, Reuters, CNN and everywhere else I've seen this reported, Polanski could have been sentenced to up to 50 years for the charge he plead guilty to. Where have you seen 1 to 15 years?
This goes against comments made out of court by the judge. Additionally, while all parties agreed to what would happen, the judge demonstrated that he would change his part of the agreement whenever he saw fit.
Don't forget about the $500K. They wanted more than just an admission. And he only plead guilty to the lowest crime. He didn't plead guilty nor did he admit to doing any of the more serious things the victim stated he did in the reports.
I think there were some very significant comments made by the judge as well as others about the judge that showed he was more interested in giving something that stood up to scrutiny by the media rather than actual justice in this case. Don't get me wrong, I believe Polanski deserves significant jail time, but I also think that he was not a moron for fleeing the country, but rather not willing to stand up and take responsibility for what he did.
Polanski made a plea bargain in which he agreed to plead guilty to the lowest charge in exchange for the other higher charges to be dropped. This is an agreement between Polanski and the prosecution and didn't involve the judge. It's a separation of powers issue.
Separately, the defense and prosecution made a deal with the judge in terms of sentencing. This sentencing deal was not a plea bargain. The guilty plea had already been given in exchange for the dropped charges. It may sound like a subtle distinction, but in this case it's very relevant because the judge reneging on the sentencing deal would have no bearing on the guilty plea. This is why there's no statue of limitations in this case. He still faces sentencing as well as new charges of failure to appear.
Bookmarks