MovieChat Forums > Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (2008) Discussion > How would someone who wasn't a celebrity...

How would someone who wasn't a celebrity have been treated by the court?

posted 12 years ago by eolloe
5 replies | jump to latest

The documentary doesn't really delve into how someone who didn't have the star power and the money of a Polanski would have been treated in that jurisdiction at that time. But it seems a relevant question for properly framing how Polanski's case was handled.

If the defendant had not been rich and famous, another judge would likely have been assigned to the case. The press wouldn't have been as ravenous in following the case. Those factors would have affected the motivations of the attorneys.

What kind of sentence was typical for similar crimes at that time?

[–] aboutthisproduct 12 years ago

It would have been more then 20 years.
+_+

[–] mollys-lips 12 years ago

Not really...the knee-jerk reaction is that he would have gotten off much too easy if the original sentence had been honored but if you compare the sentence to the charge that he plead to (and it is almost always the case that a defendant is over-charged in order to plea down to something close to the actual crime that was committed)your theory does not prove true. Nobody pleading to that crime at that time was or would have been sentenced to 20 years in jail.

[–] dancingjinn2 11 years ago

Well, one case from around that time that was much, much worse was the Steven Stayner, Timmy White kidnappings/rapes.
That guy, who was not rich or famous, got seven years for kidnapping a little boy and raping him repeatedly from the age of 7 to 14. Then kidnapping a 5-year-old which. I think the trials were around 1979.
I read he actually served 5 years. I think that is a disgustingly short sentence for his crimes. I wouldn't even really call them "similar" to Roman Polanski's except that they give a little bit of perspective to how much time someone got for raping a child repeatedly (in addition to the kidnappings, of course).

So when people say that Roman Polanski would have gotten many years in prison for his crime had he been not rich and famous, I don't necessarily think that is the case.
I would be interested if anyone actually has any real statistics/data regarding your question, but this is just what came to mind for me.

[–] CheshireCatsGrin 11 years ago

Now he would receive probation and registration in the sexual offenders database. Back then, simply probation. It was his first offense and that will influence his sentence

[–] Villings 10 years ago

The documentary doesn't really delve into how someone who didn't have the star power and the money of a Polanski would have been treated in that jurisdiction at that time. But it seems a relevant question for properly framing how Polanski's case was handled.

If the defendant had not been rich and famous, another judge would likely have been assigned to the case. The press wouldn't have been as ravenous in following the case. Those factors would have affected the motivations of the attorneys.

I'm sorry to reply such an old post/thread but the celebrity status isn't the question here, but the judge's own hunger for attention. I mean, that is pretty clear when you watch this particular documentary. Had the judge been more focused on important matters, the outcome could've been much different

*please excuse any grammatical mistake in my post, english is not my native language.

Signature must be fewer than 100 characters in length