Weighing in...by request

A friend of mine sent me a message yesterday asking me about my stance on the whole Roman Polanski debacle. He suggests that Constitutional rights are my forte'. I am flattered by the inference and hope to someday live up to his expectation. I have given this some thought and have come to the following conclusions:

1) Polanski's rights as a defendant are protected by the Constitution even though he is not a U.S. citizen. Amendments V and VI give Polanski the right to trial by jury, the protection from double jeopardy, defense counsel, and the right to a speedy trial. The verbiage used is "no person" and "the accused". I interpret that to include foreign nationals.

2) The judicial branch had the power to prosecute Polanski. Article III section 2 defines the role of judicial power. It states "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."

3) By pleading out, Polanski waived his right to a trial by jury and therefore accepted that his fate would be decided by a judge. Here is the plea agreement. The plea was: guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Also by pleading out, he agreed to be classified as a potential MDSO (mentally disturbed sex offender) and had to submit to psychiatric evaluation.

4) Judge Rittenbrand for whatever reason decided to reneg on the plea agreement (which was within his legal right from the bench) and a jury trial should have been scheduled. However, the attorney for the girl's family sent a letter to the judge and the D.A. asking that the judge reconsider to "spare the girl the ordeal of a jury trial". Of course, it didn't matter because Polanski high-tailed it out of the country.

5) This is a good example of how plea agreements screw up the judicial process. If the D.A. had enough evidence to prove "prima facie", why accept a plea in the first place? If the girl's family wanted to spare her the ordeal of a public trial, why not make that known at the beginning? Why wait until after the judge ruled on the plea agreement?

All in all, I am hoping that the U.S. drags it feet big time on the extradition orders and he gets to sit in a Swiss prison for a while. He is obviously a weak and disturbed individual. In full disclosure, I do have some sympathy for his ordeals (losing his mother to the Holocaust, losing his wife and unborn to another weak and disturbed individual). However, this cannot be used as an excuse for violating the rights of another individual (regardless of age).

The bottom line is that Polanski should serve time for his crime (and significantly more than 42 days). He should do so voluntarily. To date, he has displayed nothing but weakness by refusing to face the consequences of his actions.

AA