MovieChat Forums > Roman Polanski Discussion > The only one who should be in jail is Ju...

The only one who should be in jail is Judge Rittenband


Too bad he is deceased to face punishment for his illegal mishandling of the case.

He didn't give one iota about the victim Samantha Geimer. He just wanted to use the case to further his career and use it as his own personal showbiz show. He didn't respect the rule of law, ignoring the repeated reccommendation of probation, and time already served.

As for Polanski, what he did wasn't right, but no violence was used, and the girl was two weeks shy of her fourteen birthday, plus she had had sexual activity with men before she met Polanski. Her mother basically offered her to Polanski. Polanski took it too far. That's it. He should have gotten a slap on the wrist, and that's it. But for the Judge to pervert the course of justice for his own gain was illegal!

Polanski was right to flee.

reply

What does it matter that she was almost 14?!

reply

He's in good company. Elvis married Priscilla when she was 14. And Charlie Chaplin courted girls around this age bracket. None of these men I would consider paedophiles, and all I find likeable.

reply

Elvis met her when she was 14 - she .was about 24 when they married .

reply

Hunter Biden fucked his niece, no one gives a shit about that. If you're a Democrat you can fuck kids all day long and none of them will ever see a prison cell.

reply

First of all, what rag did you read that on and do you even care about evidence or does evidence only matter when it agrees with you?

Second, Polanski raping a 14 year old has 'what' to do with Hunter Biden and Democrats? You sound really immature.

reply

It's misleading to say that "no violence was used," when he drugged and boozed her and she obviously wasn't capable of conscious consent in that condition. And even if she wasn't drugged, at that age she was not legally considered capable of consenting.

reply

She took the booze consentually, as for the drug... unknown but let's say she didn't take that voluntarily... the sex and drugs is what he should be prosecuted for, and he was, he went through the cogs of the justice system already!! It's not his fault the judge wanted to pervert the course of justice.

reply

Are you just playing "devil's advocate" here? Even if she drank the booze willingly, he would still be responsible for supplying a minor with alcohol, which is a serious matter in itself that carries heavy fines as well as jail time.

reply

No one is saying what he did wasn't serious. I am saying the judge was a f'king retard and had a personal vendetta against him, and seriously and illegally mishandled the case.

reply

"she had had sexual activity with men before she met Polanski." What is your credible source?

reply

It's in Polanski Wanted and Desired, the factual documentary.

reply

Roman, is that you?


Or are yet another Hollywood type hoping 90 years old roman will cast you?

reply

He's 87 and may he reach 90 and beyond.

reply

Almost 14 means she was not 14. A 45 year old man has no business with a 13 year old girl. Consent laws exist for a reason, 13 is too young to consent. If you think middle aged men preying on 13 year old girls is fine, I disagree completely.

reply

I don't think it's "okay". He was a dog, and should be punished as such, but the Judge's mishandling of the case was illegal.

reply

Then I misunderstood. I don’t know anything about the judge. I thought you were supporting Polanski’s actions. What did the judge do that was wrong?

reply

Yes, plus many people may not know that Sharon Tate's widower DID go to prison for it. He got 60 days, but then the judge was going to give him 20 years in spite of a plea agreement so he did the only smart thing: left the country. Now it's been decades since Geimer herself said she wants the charges dropped, while Roman continued a great film career in Europe. AND he spent another year in Swiss custody over it. Time to drop all charges after 43 years, but I doubt he would want to return to the US now anyway.

reply

Your info is off buddy, from Wiki for you:

[As a result of the plea bargain, Polanski pleaded guilty to the charge of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor",[143][144] and was ordered to undergo 90 days of psychiatric evaluation at California Institution for Men at Chino.[145] Upon release from prison after 42 days, Polanski agreed to the plea bargain, his penalty to be time served along with probation. However, he learned afterward that the judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, had told some friends that he was going to disregard the plea bargain and sentence Polanski to 50 years in prison:[144][146] "I'll see this man never gets out of jail," he told Polanski's friend, screenwriter Howard E. Koch.[147] Gailey's attorney confirmed the judge changed his mind after he met the judge in his chambers:

He was going to sentence Polanski, rather than to time served, to fifty years. What the judge did was outrageous. We had agreed to a plea bargain and the judge had approved it.[147][148]

Polanski was told by his attorney that "the judge could no longer be trusted" and that the judge's representations were "worthless".[149] Polanski decided not to appear at his sentencing. He told his friend, director Dino De Laurentiis, "I've made up my mind. I'm getting out of here."[147] On 31 January 1978, the day before sentencing, Polanski left the country on a flight to London,[150][151] where he had a home. One day later, he left for France.[152][153] As a French citizen, he has been protected from extradition and has lived mostly in France since then.[154] Since he fled the United States before final sentencing, the charges are still pending.]

reply

I got the dates wrong (42 days instead of 60, 50 years instead of 20), but everything else is right. Again I support his decision to leave the US 100%, especially with the fascist judge in charge.

reply

90 days buddy, and I support his decision to leave the US and seek refuge in the KINGDOM OF FRANCE, too.

reply

He got 90 days psychiatric evaluation in the State slammer, and he served 42 days because he didn't need to serve the whole 90 days for them to evaluate him. BTW, this was the SECOND evaluation he had undergone. The first determined he wasn't a sexual deviant and reccommended PROBATION and timed served. The second was used as a punishment because the judge didn't want to listen to the first reccommendation. He cannot use a psychiatric evaluation as a form a punishment. He only did it because he knew Polanski's lawyer couldn't appeal it. Voila... another example of the judge's incompetence and mislandling of the case. This second psychiatric evaluation determined the same thing as the first's, that he wasn't a sexual deviant and it reccommended PROBATION and timed served. The f'king judge lost his mind.

reply

How was this case mishandled specifically?
What did the judge do wrong?

reply

LOL, I guess he accepted Polanski's guilty plea. OP sounds criminally insane.

reply

Wow... you really are clueless. There was no violence because Polanski knocked he out with a combination of Valium and alcohol, you know the 1970's version of a roofie. But I guess according to you if a woman is unconscious and can't fight the attacker it isn't rape.

As for the judge he was never bound to accept the recommendation of the prosecutor nor is any judge required to. The prosecutor can only tell the defendant that he will recommend something and that the judge may or may not go with the recommendation. That's the way the courts have operated for decades before this happened and how they continue to operate to this day. I suppose you are from another country where the courts don't operate like this... or you are simply clueless.

Polanski could have entered a plea of innocent and gone to trial if he wanted to but he decided to plead guilty. His choice... but not man enough to accept the consequence of what he did or the plea that he entered.

reply

You were apparently there. Why didn't you stop him?

reply