Roman Polanski gets bail -- if it sticks, will he skip again? [POLL]

Bail in the amount of $4.5 million has been approved for director Roman Polanski, who's been held in Zurich, Switzerland, facing extradition  to Los Angeles to be sentenced for unlawful intercourse with a 13-year-old girl more than three decades ago.

But he's not out just yet -- the Swiss government has 10 days to appeal the decision.

Swiss Justice Ministry spokesman Folco Galli told the UK Daily Mail that Polanski is considered a "high flight risk."

Gee, ya think?

Seriously, what do you think? The Ministry's Office of Absolutely Accurate Online Statistics wants to know.

(The poll is a simple one -- share your thoughts in the comments.)

-- Christie D'Zurilla

Photo: Roman Polanski at the Cannes Film Festival in 2007. Credit: Valery Hache / AFP/Getty Images

Comments

[Whodat]

You need another choice in the poll: "Hell yes, in a NY minute..."

[James]

The charge on which Polanski was finally convicted is incredibly light, given the facts. His actual act was the forcible rape and drugging of that child, which he almost certainly planned well in advance. He had every chance of being sentenced to nothing more than probation. The rapist chose instead to spend his life as a fugitive. Will he run again? Well, why shouldn't he? His likely sentence is much worse now. He has huge resources, many friends, and can simply stay out of Switzerland henceforth just as he avoids the US. The Swiss court is incredibly stupid to grant bail. That judge needs a bigtime slap upside-o-de-haid.

[Barry]

What good is the money if he ends up in a cage for the rest of his life. Of course he will run if he can.

[Barry]

See that picture. that's not a wave hello it is a wave goodbye.

[Ted Clayton]

#1.) How much money does Polanski himself have? Is he rich enough to toss 4.5 mil? Does he have 20 million? It is possible he is not all that wealthy.

#2.) Are friends putting together this money, for him? If so, it could be regarded as simply the price of freeing beloved Roman.

#3.) Is he mortaging his house & everything he has ... and leaving his wife a pauper if he skips?

#4.) If he does skip ... say back to France; what are the options for the Swiss, and other nations? Is he still protected from extradition, same as before, or will he have changed his status by skipping on the Swiss?

But of course, this could all be a blip, since the Swiss Fed are appealing ... tho they did once imply that they wanted to see cash ... and now he's waving it.

[Control Freaks]

I would ENCOURAGE Roman to return to his home country. Screw the United States. Go home and live good Roman. 4.5 million is worth every penny for your freedom.

[robt]

He's a liberal. It is ingrained in them to avoid responsibility for your actions at all cost (even $4.5M).

[Thomasi]

@Ted Clayton: Where are you all getting your facts re the Swiss decision to appeal?

Reuters says: "Swiss television quoted Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf as saying she saw no reason to appeal against the court’s decision."

[Scott]

Well the conditions of the bail state that he will be under house arrest and subject to electronic monitoring. So it will be hard for him to flee... although much easier than it would have been from inside prison.

[Joe A. Rivera]

His plan to skip out is simple. A helicopter picks him up soon after he arrives at the chalet and takes him to France. No electronic monitor will prevent such an escape.

[Robert Thornton]

Ha... what a funny disclaimer at the beginning of this comments section. Apparently, if you are 13 you can have sex with Roman Polanski, but you cannot post a comment on the LA Times. What a world!

[bob]

Faster than you can say, I raped a teenager.

[Polanski Is Bad]

Naturally, Mr. Polanski will high tail it out of Switzerland and make a mad rush for the French border where he will enjoy his morning croissants. Where he can savor the delight of being free.

Whereas the memory of what he did to that poor little girl so many years ago will last with her a lifetime. One has to ask, what does she think about this sick twisted man?

Does the prospect of her assailant enjoying the good life while she continually agonizes each and every day make her feel good?

Now, back to Roman, can we blame him for wanting to head back to France? Why should he subject himself to Guantanamo Bay? Would you?

[Quagmire J. Polanski]

If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate.
Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.

If you are under 13 give me a call.

[Control Freaks]

Seems the LA Times doesn't allow people to say what they really believe, going with the 1st Amendment. So the LA Times is censoring readers of their papers? What will come next in the censoring of us citizens?

[Zach]

Of course he's going to flee!

Think about it, all his money won't do him any good in prison. On top of that, he's getting up there in age. Even if he has to bail to somewhere like Vietnam or Mexico, it sure beats spending the rest of your life behind bars.

[swammy]

They should split the 4.5 million with the US.
Then release him on bail and forget about it, let him escape.
Then wait for him to slip up again, arrest him then collect more bail then repeat.

[carl]

All of the child-rape supporters in Hollywood will probably front the $$$ and he'll skip out. No big surprise.

[CPF]

So one month and a day after the extradition request goes in, Switzerland overturns its position on bail for Polanski. Might as well try and get paid!

[CDZ from the Ministry]

Hey, @ControlFreaks, it's Christie D'Zurilla. No grand plot to censor ... it's just the whole, "only one of me and a whole lot of comments" dynamic.

Hot tip to all for getting comments published: Skip the profanity, whether it's hard-core, mild, full of "***" or in acronyms. It's not about censorship -- just the Ministry's zero-tolerance policy on cussing, which I've actually bent on a bunch of comments today, prompting a lot of self-loathing.

Thanks for reading and commenting! /cdz

[dave]

It is amazing to read the venom from readers. Mr. Polanski was lied to by the LA judge after an agreement was made. I'd like to know who dug up this case after decades. I bet it was one of those right wing born again types. I don't think he will bolt.

[Control Freaks]

There wasn't a single word of foul language whatsoever in my initial post. It is appearant however, that you will only approve for posting what you agree with.

[JohnScott]

I don't know if it should be considered BAIL-bail since he didn't commit RAPE-rape.

[Bill]

The definition of Statutory rape was different 30 years ago. The wording of the old penal code must be applied, and not the current more severe test. That's the law. In many jurisdictions 30 years ago, statutory rape applied only to a girl under the age of 13, and if she was13 or older it was carnal knowledge, a misdemeanor,not a felony. This, of course, carries with it a lighter sentence. The Supreme court has held that the extant law at the time of the crime must be applied, and not current law. Polanski would be foolish to skip out on bail, since I doubt if his sentence will exceed the additional 45 days imposed on him by the court. No, the sentence was not incredibly light. This was a time before America's scarlet-letter puritan obsession with sex was awakened, aroused and excited by sensational reportage on TV and in the press.

[Vic]

Yes he will flee again. He is old and pretty much at deaths door, chances are that he will hide under the stupid french flag. I hope they deny his bail, its nice and sunny here in LA. Im sure this pedophile will enjoy the hospitality of our jail system, but chances are he will get special treatment. Screw that, bring his tired old ass back, throw him in jail and put his ass in general population, au-revoir