Man bites dog Dog bites man isn’t news, as they say. But elite media pundit writes man was asking for it is news. The extradition of a single sex offender isn’t news, but the bizarre reaction to it is. Police arrest black man for no reason isn’t news (sadly), but media decides cops can arrest people in their own homes for talking back is.
Not to get all Bob Somerby on y’all, but I believe that the impeachment of Clinton — and the Village reaction to it — was the signature political/media event of my lifetime. The discussion surrounding the Polanski case reminds me of a weird photo negative of it — Clinton had to be impeached for a consensual relationship with an adult, Polanski should be pay no price for raping a thirteen year-old. There’s the placement of class before all else (Clinton was white trash, Polanski a high-class art director), the inability to stop talking about sex (read MoDo’s thong piece — correctly titled here — if you want to be a little sick), the strange fixation with extralegal remedies (compare “there’s a maddening frustration that the political system doesn’t have a set of penalties for this kind of activity” with “let me at him“). And even when the media condemns the craziness (via John’s earlier post), it denies its own role in creating it.
Things haven’t changed much since 1998.
MBunge
“Not to get all Bob Somerby on y’all, but I believe that the impeachment of Clinton—and the Village reaction to it—was the signature political/media event of my lifetime.”
Uh, didn’t Clinton get to say in office because the Village decided he should? And besides focusing on the elite-covering-for-each-other thing, it might be more insightful to compare Polanski to the reaction over the rape allegations against Bill Clinton.
Mike
DougJ
Uh, didn’t Clinton get to say in office because the Village decided he should?
Actually, it was because of a Senate vote. The Village plays no constitutional role in the removal process.
Mr Furious
Silly DougJ…why are you continuing with this waste of time? There’s peak oil to discuss!
–Michael Gass
Crashman06
I wish I remembered more about the politics of that time; I was too busy trying to make it out of high school at the time. It seems like a lot of the crap out there now goes back to the Congressional Republicans in Clinton’s two terms.
Cat Lady
That Sally Quinn article is breathtaking to behold again in all its sanctimonious, snotty Villager vainglory. My favorite part: The Lying Offends Them. Orly? Pray, do tell.
What I wouldn’t give to see Sally Quinn and Cokie Roberts in stocks in the middle of Georgetown, and a basket of rotten tomatoes.
Fergus Wooster
Since we’ve got another Polanski-related thread, I just wanted to ask something that popped into my mind at 3am.
Has anyone seen “Death and the Maiden”? A Polanski film of an Ariel Dorfman play in the late 90’s. Sigourney Weaver is a former political prisoner in Chile who decades later kidnaps and tortures the doctor (Ben Kingsley) who had raped her during her imprisonment.
I wonder what was going through his head when he had Sigourney gag Ben with her dirty undies, verbally abuse him and struggle to come up with an apt punishment? Considering raping him with a broom handle, but ultimately wailing that “no amount of revenge can satisfy me”?
I’m wondering whether there was some remorse and self-loathing there, or is he such a sociopath he didn’t make the connection.
Zifnab
The momentum is changing, and the Democrats have a lot more plays in their playbook, while the Republicans are running the same old scams.
“Serious People” journalists aren’t getting as many eyeballs. Republicans have had ten years to broil in their own scandals. Public sentiment has moved massively to the left. It’s only 1998 inside the Beltway. Everyone else is acutely aware of 2009.
ellaesther
The piece that keeps getting lost in all the hysteria Out There is that Roman Polanski committed a felony and then committed another felony in escaping justice.
It almost doesn’t matter what the crime was — but as it is, the crime was a particularly heinous one.
Does the American people value its legal system, are the laws there for a reason — or not? Do they reflect our values and the way we believe society should run — or not? Or, put another way: Do we reward people for successfully evading their legal responsibilities — or not? And if so, what is the cut-off date? “Good on ya, mate, you kept it up for more than 30 years! If it had only been 29, we would have had to drag you in!”
Oh, I could go on and on! But I already have, and I have this sneaking suspicion that I should do some actual work for which I will actually get paid, rather than go all around the intertubez expressing my fucking rage….
Mnemosyne
@Fergus Wooster:
Polanski often identifies with the victims in his movie — in The Tenant, it was to the point of actually playing the role. Take a look back at that lingering shot of the family photo at the end of Repulsion. It’s a pretty clear signal that Carol is so fucked up because her father molested her.
But that’s one of the fucked-up things about human nature — just because you identify with the victims of rape or torture doesn’t mean you’ll refrain from doing it yourself under the right circumstances.
zadig
The other weird thing about this is the way right-wing talkers are trying to make this another left/right culture war, as if the Left is saying “oh, boys will be boys” and the Right is saying “The letter of the law must prevail, and oh, that poor victim!”
My experience is that people on the left and right are both saying “Jesus, he drugged and raped a 13 year old. What a criminal asshole. Good on the authorities for nailing the bastard after 30 years.” A few celebrities are saying “Oh, come on, it’s been so long, and the victim is saying don’t bother me anymore, let’s all let it drop.” And they’re catching a lot of shit for saying that from everyone else.
Left/right doesn’t really apply to this one. But you’d never know that if you listen to Limbaugh. Which I’ve been doing today, out of a weird sort of masochism.
Fergus Wooster
@Mnemosyne:
And the Pianist.
I’m with you on the contradiction between identifying with victims and occasionally being a perpetrator. I’m just wondering whether there was some self-knowledge on his part, or if he’s that good (?) at compartmentalizing.
A brilliant, fascinating and repulsive man.
Linkmeister
Nitpick: Er, “dog bites man” isn’t news; “man bites dog” certainly is.
Parole Officer Burke
Actually, the cliché is that “Man Bites Dog” is news, while “Dog Bites Man” isn’t (the latter being a daily occurrence, while the former is relatively unusual).
Unsure if there’s some secret ironic twist at play here.
Parole Officer Burke
@Linkmeister: Pedants, unite! We have nothing to lose but our friends.
licensed to kill time
@Crashman06:
I remember it all too well. It was positively poisonous. Once again, the combination of Celebrity (President), Sex and a Sweet Young Thing was just all too attractive for the media, who reported ad nauseum in graphic detail. The Republicans were shameless in their hypocritical outrage and relentless as a rat terrier in their lust to get Clinton. They certainly honed their chops on the trumped up “high crimes and misdemeanors” basis for the impeachment but ultimately couldn’t get the rational public (or the Senate) to play along.
I’m hoping they will overplay their hand in these similar attempts to delegitimize Obama. IMHO, of course, I think they already have.
Polanski, I’m tired of talking about. He’s a scumbag. As AsiangrrlMN said, I have poutrage fatigue.
Comrade Mary
Did anyone ever see Polanski’s version of Macbeth? Much of it was like Kill Bill with different accents and no Japanese schoolgirls.
Macbeth v. Macduff, raw but not anywhere near the bloodiest scene. There were some great performances, though.
jwb
@zadig: I agree, this is more about the belief that a different set of rules obtain for a particular set of (powerful) people than a right/left thing. I also don’t think those Hollywood types who signed that petition realize how much damage they’ve done to themselves.
Crashman06
@licensed to kill time: All I remember is that my parents hated “Slick Willy” as they called him, with a passion, but I didn’t really care. Maybe it’s better that I was politically unconscious throughout the 90s.
Mike
DougJ,
Before you continue to spout off about Polanski’s defenders, I would at least encourage you to reasonably acquaint yourself with the facts which are readily accessible by watching “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired” where all the main players except for the deceased judge are interviewed. There was no trial and no cross-examination of the witness’ testimony. Polanski pled guilty to unlawful intercourse with a minor which normally carried no prison sentence for a first offense–indeed that was exactly the probation report recommendation. Nevertheless, he served 42 days in prison for the offense in exchange for pleading guilty–the deal that was made WITH THE JUDGE. Nevertheless, the judge decided to renege on that deal that judge himself had agreed to after Polanski served the time. The judge then decided he would give him 48 more days in prison so long as Polanski didn’t fight deportation (an illegal request, btw). However, at that point no one (not even the prosecutor) trusted the judge anymore–which is why Polanski fled. So, we’re hauling someone’s ass all the way from Switzerland 32 years after the fact using tremendous judicial resources because some bat shit judge violating his own promise tried to squeeze 48 more days out of him–THAT, among other reasons, is why people think it’s idiotic.
Fergus Wooster
@Comrade Mary:
Yes – incredible film. Almost nobody I know has seen it.
Lots of bloody scenes. The slaughter of MacDuff’s family, children included and servants raped.
But the creepiest is the flashback of MacDuff being “untimely ripped” from his mother’s womb. This was Polanski’s first film after the Tate murders, and one can’ t help thinking about Atkins and company ripping out Sharon Tate’s unborn child. Putting that to film must have been excruciating.
Mnemosyne
@Fergus Wooster:
I’m guessing he’s that good at compartmentalizing. Though it’s not an excuse for his actions by any means, he did have an extremely fucked-up life, the kind where you either become very good at compartmentalizing or you die. It makes perfect sense to me that he would be able to hold two completely contradictory thoughts about his actions, because it’s a skill he had to learn at a young age.
The Moar You Know
@zadig: I find it odd that these folks are so tone-deaf that they wouldn’t see how such a sentiment would play with the American public.
Hell, I find myself at odds with my co-workers for not vigorously endorsing the idea that Polanski be submerged in a vat of acid, starting with the gonads.
Tom Q
To be fair, the petition that most film people signed merely objected to the fact that Switzerland had abruptly changed its extradition policy, and that they had used the occasion of a film festival tribute to make the arrest. The latter, in particular, probably struck close to home for many. As far as I know, there was no defense of Polanski’s crime contained in the text.
The problem is, of course, SOME celebrities — like my long-time love Debra Winger — have gone way over the line in support, and our ever-hoping-to-promote-culture-war media will see to it that the distinction between them and the petition-signers is obliterated.
licensed to kill time
@Crashman06:
Heh. Yep, better – but lucky you, you get to experience full-on ODS, distressingly similar. The more things change, etc etc…
Linkmeister
@Parole Officer Burke: Grins. I know. I hesitated to write it for just that reason, but (excuse ahead!) “in the interest of accuracy” I thought it had to be said.
Brachiator
I’m not sure about the photo negative bit. There’s all kinds of interesting swirls and eddies surrounding both men, but you have to watch out lest you be pulled under by false comparisons.
For example, Clinton’s impeachment involved a political official, and the charges were magnified, while Polanski was a private citizen and the charges perhaps minimized.
While the Village reaction to Clinton was indeed interesting, the average citizen refused to buy the okie-doke. Clinton’s popularity soared so much that pundits made fools of themselves trying to “explain” to the American people why it was so freaking important to impeach him.
Also, while there are some in the political and cultural elite who are looking to forgive Polanski, his past actions are almost universally condemned among the wider populace (both in the US and in France, as it turns out). And note that there has been little over-reaction, no calling for life in prisonment, only that Polanski needs to somehow complete the sentencing process.
Part of this, I think, is because we have been recently been almost overwhelmed with lurid rape cases, some involving children. Elizabeth Smart, abducted by a crazed religious zealot, recently had to make a court appearance, and confirmed the worst fears concerning her abduction.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/10/01/national/a074632D96.DTL&tsp=1
And although Bill Clinton never sought out a minor for his sexual adventures (and if he had, his enemies would have had this crap out in a heartbeat), the inconvenient truth is that some of his behavior was at least boorish, and perhaps too persistent to be entirely consensual (for example, his tryst with actress Elizabeth Gracen). And some of the same Hollywood and Village crowd rushing to Polanski’s defense also had no problem with Clinton’s worst behavior.
Sam
I’m also going to guess that at least a substantial portion of the supporters were making “me too” reactions to climb aboard what they saw as the bandwagon of the cool kids without much idea of the underlying facts.
That’s why I said in the other thread his supporters will end up having harmed Polanski. Without the media blitz there would have been far less attention paid to the grand jury testimony and all the sordid details and to the misperceptions that have existed concerning the the procedural aspects of the case.
Certainly there would have been publicity but it was his friends who turned it into a media circus and now he faces officials in both countries in both the prosecution offices and judicial chambers who know they are being very closely scrutinized.
Stupid. Neither Switzerland or L.A. County are likely to do anything that even has a whiff of preferential treatment now.
Splitting Image
The interesting thing to me about the Polanski business is how much some of the people commenting on it seem to be projecting into it.
Whoopi Goldberg seems to be under the impression Polanski was convicted of a completely different type of crime than the one he actually committed, and some of the people guffawing at Woody Allen springing to Polanski’s defense don’t seem to feel that being convicted of a crime (as Polanski was and Allen was not) makes any difference.
To be honest, the only person I’ve ended up with a degree of respect for is the victim. She made her statement thirty years ago and accepted the terms of Polanski’s plea bargain, and she hasn’t really budged from her position on either. I’ve gotten the impression that some of the people calling for Polanski’s head are annoyed that she seems willing to settle for less of a punishment than they think Polanski should get; and I also think it’s funny that some of the people who push for victims’ rights to influence sentencing by making a “victim impact statement” in court seem to think we ought to ignore the victim this time because she’s not saying “send him to the chair”.
Having said that, a lot of the people defending Polanski are completely detached from reality. Seriously, people brought the Holocaust into this? Give me a break.
Here’s what I’m guessing will happen.
1) Polanski will have to face the sentencing for the original rape charge. The victim and both lawyers from the original case will ask the court to abide by the original plea bargain. The judge will agree. People expecting him to get 10 years for the rape will howl with rage.
2) Polanski will be charged with fleeing the country and evading justice. The case will be hyped worse than the OJ Simpson trial, all of the principals from the original trial will testify in Polanski’s defense, and David Broder will write a column praising all involved for their bipartisanship. Polanski will end up serving some time, but not as much as people were hoping. This will serve as evidence that people had it in for him because he was a celebrity, and that he got off lightly because he was a celebrity.
3) Someone more deserving of people’s sympathy will get arrested at one of these film fests and get sent home to be tortured by the regime he or she offended. (Iran, maybe?) The country responsible will cite the Polanski precedent as a justification, but no one will notice or pay any attention.
4) Polanski will win an Oscar for the first film he does after he gets out of jail.
toujoursdan
OT, but in Canada there really was a man bites dog story in the news today.
CBC News: Saskatoon Man Bites Dog
gnomedad
Sex is dirty. The evil Democrats think sex between consenting adults should be nobody else’s business. The wise and moral Republicans know that all non-marital sex is nasty. True, the Republicans are
oftenoccasionally caught at the nasty kind of sex, but they are properly remorseful and are forgiven by Jesusuntil the next time. Trading up for a wealthier and better-lookingwiveswife is also cool.Zifnab
“Tough on crime” is code for “beating the dead horse”. The victim’s pleas for a harsher sentence are just a cover for general harsh sentencing. Because if a random DA calls to have a rapist’s nuts sawed off with a rusty chainsaw, he sounds like a bloodthirsty goon. But if you get an abused and vengeful defendant saying the same thing, suddenly people say “Oh, well, he/she’s got a point”.
It’s an excuse for lynching. That’s all it’s ever been. It’s the Nancy Grace judicial system.
ericblair
@Tom Q: To be fair, the petition that most film people signed merely objected to the fact that Switzerland had abruptly changed its extradition policy, and that they had used the occasion of a film festival tribute to make the arrest. The latter, in particular, probably struck close to home for many.
Why Switzerland finally decided to extradite him might have a story behind it. The idea that a film festival should have some sort of diplomatic immunity attached to it suggests that Hollywood takes itself a leetle bit too seriously. Must be fun staring at your own navel all day.
Brachiator
This is not quite correct. The victim’s statement did change over time. Also, there was a private settlement between the victim and Polanski. Here she obviously pursued a civil remedy. It’s not as though she entirely said let bygones be bygones.
Wrong again. Polanski’s defenders are using the victim’s statement as though it is in her power to render the final verdict on Polanski. Sadly, it is not. From a Polanski FAQ at Slate:
Polanski has never been formally sentenced. The 42 days he spent under psychiatric evaluation could conceivably become his time served, but this is a matter for the judge to decide, not his victim, who simply cannot render a verdict.
Polanski put himself in this phantom zone by running before he could be sentenced, even if that sentence is nothing more than a ratification of the original plea bargain.
But if you want to give the victim’s words special weight, you also should give Polanski’s bragging 1979 interview that “everyone” wants to have sex with young girls some weight as well in considering what a just resolution might be.
Fern
@Fergus Wooster:
The other movie that makes me feel a little ill in this context is Tess.
Brachiator
@gnomedad:
Marital sex can be nasty, too. If it’s done right.
Sam
The time he is serving in detenmtion in Switzerland may (and I believe should) also be credited as time served. I’m not familiar with the Swiss prison system but I’m going to guess it might be preferable to an L.A. County lockup.
The end result if he drags the extradition proceedings out long enough might be he has served enough time to staisfy the sentence ultimately imposed.
He actually does have some mitigating circumstances to present in mitigation of punishment. He is old. Despite conjecture, he has committed no other offenses and there is no evidence of future dangerousness. He did make a settlement with the victim who has accepted it and desires no further penal sanction.
He may also now not have the inclination even if he had the opportunity to make himself appear as a callous bon vivant in time before sentencing.
And, he might actually be a better person now than he was then. People do change.
None of that is relevant as to whether he should have to return and face sentencing but it is relevant to what the sentence should be. Of course, so is the fact he chose to flee and live the good life as a fugitive for three decades, but that’s more relevant in that it makes him a poor candidate for supervision than anything elese.
ChrisB
The formative political/media affair of my life was Watergate, which is one reason why I have a misguided view of the current state of affairs.
One can argue, correctly, that Watergate percolated along slowly without much media interest for quite some time. But my memories are of the media, the Congress and the courts ultimately standing up to a corrupt administration.
There were wingnuts then too, and defenders of the administration like Fred Thompson (the minority counsel on the Senate select committee) and Trent Lott (a young Congressman at the time), but the media seemed willing to take a stand and point out inconsistencies.
I wonder how the 18 and 1/2 minute gap would be treated by today’s media.
Brachiator
@Sam:
None of this is mitigating, and it is not even part of the speculation of possible defense strategy.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski-legal1-2009oct01,0,1100452.story
This current story also provides an additional wrinkle on the original judge’s thinking:
Another interesting wrinkle:
Also, interestingly enough, the probation officer’s report, well, mitigated all over itself.
This is the factual and legal opinion background.
calipygian
@Mike: Roman Polanski pled guilty to unlawful intercourse with a minor.
He admitted to getting her drunk and assfucking her.
Mike, you are defending getting 13 year olds liquored up and ass-fucking them.
Bravo.
Comrade Scrutinizer
I’m still not sure why Roman effing Polanski is the cause de jour. For all the “He raped a 13 year old child and confessed to it” crap that out there, no, he didn’t. He confessed to having sex with an underage minor. That’s all. The rest of her statement has never been tested on cross-examination, and Polanski wasn’t convicted of rape, nor did he confess to it.
I’m sure Nancy Grace and her wannabes know the Truth about what happened, just like they knew the Truth about Gary Condit and the Ramseys. I don’t pretend to, and I think that this late in the game, only Polanski and the girl really know what happened. (Well, and maybe Jack and Angelica). It’s a great topic for what Somersby calls “thigh-rubbing”, but I don’t see that is has any relevance except as an opportunity to channel undirected rage.
Jason Bylinowski
Serious question: is the final resolution of this incident with Polanski going to increase or decrease his overall level of fame? I think in the end it will probably raise him up a notch or two. His childhood and early adult life is pretty complicated from a psychological point of view, and while this does not excuse his actions, it does serve to explain them (especially when you can then examine his output as a director and find lots of what appears to be little references to it), and this is of primary relevance when discussing matters of posterity.
So, then, if I’m right, does it serve our purpose (that purpose being justice, I suppose) to bring him in after all these years? I think it does, but only because I don’t mind that he’ll be more famous because of it, and because on a personal level I don’t think he has really paid for his crimes. It’d be one thing if he was in exile as a pauper, but he’s been very well off ever since he left the country, so far as I have been able to determine.
Kevin K.
If you really were, you would have called Rachel Maddow an idiot before you clicked the submit button.
Brachiator
@Comrade Scrutinizer:
Confessing is what you do in front of the cops. Polanski pleaded guilty. He could always withdraw his plea.
None of this has anything remotely to do with Gary Condit or the Ramseys, unless your assertion of “I don’t know” means “Maybe nothing happened.”
Which is absurd.
Comrade Scrutinizer
@calipygian:
No. He admitted to having sexual intercourse with a minor under 18, not his wife. He did not admit to getting her drunk, he did not admit to giving her drugs, and he did not admit to sodomy.
DougJ
Before you continue to spout off about Polanski’s defenders
My point has nothing to do with the specifics of the trial. The point is that of all the things to get outraged about, they pick this.
Comrade Scrutinizer
@Brachiator: A confession to any charge other than sex with a minor was never offered into evidence, because there was no trial. Polanski only pled guilty to one felony. I know what the allegations against Polanski are, but other than his having sex with a minor, he wasn’t convicted of any of them. We have the girl’s grand jury testimony, but she was never cross-examined.
I’m not saying “maybe nothing happened”; there’s a plea agreement that says something happened. I’m saying I don’t know whether she’s telling the truth about everything that happened, and that you can’t say that a person is guilty on all counts because they plead guilty to one. Unless you’re psychic. Or Nancy Grace.
Mike
And, more importantly, why do I hate America? And why am I palling around with terrorists too?
And my point is whatever your point is you shouldn’t make it with glib inaccurate claims such as people are arguing: “Polanski should be pay no price for raping a thirteen year-old.”
Darkrose
@Comrade Scrutinizer:
He pled guilty to one felony, which is statutory rape. The “rape” part is important, because the whole point is that someone under the age of majority cannot give meaningful consent to sex. If her testimony under oath is true, then yes, it would have been rape regardless of her age, but in this case, the issue is that a 43-year-old man should not have sex with a 13-year-old girl, full stop.
Darkrose
@Fergus Wooster:
Macbeth is the only Polanski film I’ve ever seen, and the reason I saw it is because my religion teacher my senior year of high school was lazy, and showed us random movies on a regular basis. The only thing I remember about it is that it was really bloody and I ended up not watching and writing Duran Duran fanfic.
(We also saw The Elephant Man, The Rose, and Testament. It was a weird class.)
wobbly
Since the victim in the case has said, and has been saying for years, that Polanski has suffered enough and that she wanted the matter dropped…
Why isn’t that enough?
This arrest has already put her, her husband, her children, in a media spotlight they do not deserve.
The victim, raped in the first case, by Roman Polanski, sought justice.
She now wants peace.
Makewi
To some degree it boils down to the simple fact that the human love of cheap thrills is greater than the love of “the big issues”. It’s harder to wrap your mind around the details of the rights of the individual vs the needs of society, than it is to understand that a much older man drugged an ass raped a 13 year old girl.
Perhaps that’s why you continue to insist that Clinton was impeached for the things that led to the impeachment, rather than the dealing with the actual charges. Or why you would claim that a Rhodes scholar, Harvard educated lawyer, former 2 term Arkansas governor, 2 term POTUS can somehow be classified as “white trash”.
There is no need to rehash the Clinton argument. I disagreed with the impeachment, but I also think he was a dick for the adultery who should have just said “none of your business” when asked about it.
FWIW – while ass fucking is more fun to consider than ass raping, I believe it is true that sex and crime sells better than just sex.
Brachiator
@Comrade Scrutinizer:
Since no one connected with the case, not even Polanski, has ever challenged the victim’s testimony, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Your evocation of Nancy Grace is cute, but stunningly irrelevant.
Now, Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor. This is a little more specific than “something happened.”
And we also have this from links reference earlier:
Now, it has been 30 years since the incident, and in that time, neither Polanski nor any of his attorneys have ever made a claim that any of the grand jury testimony was false.
If they wish to do so, or even withdraw Polanski’s guilty plea, then I will give them every benefit of the doubt. Until then, to claim some lofty neutrality does not make much sense.
Makewi
@wobbly:
The victim isn’t the only one with a say in the case. Society at large has a right to have an opinion on the matter, and the way that happens in our society is through the DA’s office of the jurisdiction in question.
Consider it this way. A rapist can be forgiven by the victim, but the victim has no right to speak for the rest of us in determining whether breaking the law should be punished, and has no right to speak for those who could be future victims. The proper place for those determinations is within our legal system.
DougJ
Or why you would claim that a Rhodes scholar, Harvard educated lawyer, former 2 term Arkansas governor, 2 term POTUS can somehow be classified as “white trash”.
He was treated as such by official Washington, IMHO.
Sam
Brachiator:
You have no understanding of the criminal justice system.
all of the factos i described are most definitely mitigating factors. As you are obviouisly not part of the defense teamit is rather ludicrous for you to pronounce as toi defense strategy. Had you more common sense than you do legal knowledge you might appreciate the defense lawyers would not be publicly discussing mitigating sentencing factors at a time whenb the public face of the case is first resisting extradition and then if that fails seeking to overturn the conviction.
You provide this quote:
“Legal experts, however, said Polanski has options beyond begging for leniency. There are a number of legal maneuvers, such as withdrawing his guilty plea, that could result in the case being dropped entirely or in a sentence of no prison time.”
Any “expert” who opines that there is ANY realistic chance of the case being dropped entirely should obviously be ignored. If you understood things you would catch the difference between idle public posturing and how things actiually proceed. With understanding you might also recognize that the clause “withdrawing his guilty plea … could result … in a sentence of no prison time.” Makes no sense. If he was permitted to withdraw his guilty plea he would then face trial on all the original charges and if convicted of any he would likely receive a far worse sentence than he now faces. If he won the trial then, of course there would be NO sentence not one that included no prison time.
The best chghance he has for a sentence of no prison time is obviously to go forward with sentencing on the single count of the conviction which is the least serious chare and present mitigating factors at sentencing.
You eliminate any possibility that you will be taken seriously when 6ou cut and paste from a newespaper article and call that the legal and factual background.