View Full Version : Roman Polanski- No Justice Needed
tibilicus
07-12-2010, 20:12
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jul/12/romanpolanski-switzerland
Disgusting, to state but one word which comes to mind. Looks like Roman, the pal of all Hollywood A-listers will not have to face the music for his crime. It really is nice to know that money and fame really can buy you redemption and forgiveness in the eyes of many and that paying off a victim is enough to escape the course of justice.
Of course, Roman, the "artist" as his friends like to call him seems to think his briefest of stints behind bars means he has already paid for his crime and that he shouldn't have to face the same justice any normal citizen would face because, you known, he's Roman. Funny that, because generally speaking those who are innocent don't flee a country and hide in the Swiss Alps like a coward. So, any one actually agree with this? Would be interesting to here some other view points on the subject seeming I personally can't comprehend how this is right or proper.
Oh, and the Guardian has also kindly produced a laughable column on the whole saga. I don't think the Guardian has put out something so profoundly rubbish since the abolishing the armed forces article a few months back..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jul/12/roman-polanski-extradite-swiss-us
Hmm, maybe more details will emerge as the newsday goes on, but right now it seems that the Swiss rationale was an "error" in the extradition paperwork. I'd like to hear more. It's not every day that a convicted pedophile is allowed to walk away whistling.
Apparently the sexual relation was consented AND the girl has already asked the court to drop the charges.
So I wouldn't be shocked if he didn't get time in. There were/are no harmed interests, there is no base to press a charge.
There were/are no harmed interests, there is no base to press a charge.
Yah, I am not a lawyer, but as best I understand it this statement is irrelevant. Polanski fled the jurisdiction and is a fugitive from justice, and has been for most of his adult life. There's no legal equivalent for takesies-backsies or no-harm-no-foul. I'll admit, the situation is a bit complicated, but it ain't that complicated. He was convicted of raping a 13-year-old and fled before serving his sentence.
-edit-
Hmm, here's a little more detail (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10601930.stm):
The Swiss said US authorities failed to provide confidential testimony about Polanski's original sentencing procedure.
The Justice Ministry also said that national interests were taken into consideration in the decision.
A statement said: "The 76-year-old French-Polish film director Roman Polanski will not be extradited to the US.
"The freedom-restricting measures against him have been revoked."
It added: "The reason for the decision lies in the fact that it was not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty a fault in the US extraditionary request."
Yah, I am not a lawyer, but as best I understand it this statement is irrelevant. Polanski fled the jurisdiction and is a fugitive from justice, and has been for most of his adult life. There's no legal equivalent for takesies-backsies or no-harm-no-foul. I'll admit, the situation is a bit complicated, but it ain't that complicated. He was convicted of raping a 13-year-old and fled before serving his sentence.
-edit-
Hmm, here's a little more detail (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10601930.stm):
The Swiss said US authorities failed to provide confidential testimony about Polanski's original sentencing procedure.
The Justice Ministry also said that national interests were taken into consideration in the decision.
A statement said: "The 76-year-old French-Polish film director Roman Polanski will not be extradited to the US.
"The freedom-restricting measures against him have been revoked."
It added: "The reason for the decision lies in the fact that it was not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty a fault in the US extraditionary request."
You're probably right. I'm mixing international law with State law. >_<
gaelic cowboy
07-12-2010, 21:17
Sounds like somone in US should lose there job so if they can't fill out an extradition form properly
Apparently the sexual relation was consented AND the girl has already asked the court to drop the charges.
So I wouldn't be shocked if he didn't get time in. There were/are no harmed interests, there is no base to press a charge.
A 13 year old girl given alcohol and ludes can not offer consent. Polanski was indicted on 6 felony charges (stolen from wiki - rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor), but plea-bargained a deal for guilty to one charge of unlawful sexual intercourse, 90 days. He served 42 days under psychiatric observation, was released by the shrink, and fled before he could be put into jail for the remainder of the sentence. Guilt or innocence does not play into it, he already plead guilty, he is an escaped convict. The now-adult victim has asked the police to drop the charges (after being paid off, mind you), but at this point the escaped felon bit is more aggravating to police than the child-rapist bit.
There probably are some shenanigans around the sentencing/plea deal. The judge was not happy about the 90 day sentence for such a heinous crime, and Polanski bolted when he thought more might be added.
He's a free man, but he's still a slimeball. And the Hollywood types supporting him are not much better.
Sounds like somone in US should lose there job so if they can't fill out an extradition form properly
The excuse given by Switzerland is just that, an excuse. Their reputation as a safe-haven for people with money has already been trashed over the last several years, and they didn't want it to take a further drubbing by extraditing Polanski. Switzerland decided to get around this by requesting evidence about his sentencing on the basis that they wanted to determe for themselves whether his sentencing was proper before sending him to the US. The US stance was that this was none of Switzerland's business, since he confessed to and was convicted of a crime in the United States. Switzerland was essentially trying to impose their own legal jurisdiction on a court case over which they have no jurisdiction whatsoever (since Polanski is not a Swiss citizen and the crime did not occur in Switzerland). Had the US given Switzerland the info, they would have decided not to extradite him based on that evidence. Essentially, they were going to deny it no matter what.
Hosakawa Tito
07-13-2010, 00:01
Yeah, his arrest and then release had absolutely nothing to do with Swiss Bank UBS AG abetting/enabling thousands of Americans, among others, to evade taxes and the legal wrangling over that issue with the US Government. The French & Swiss can have him, and his morally bankrupt Hollywood friends can go join him.
Seamus Fermanagh
07-13-2010, 01:35
It has always struck me that he didn't "get it." I believe he was being set up for a civil suit. After the appropriate payoff and a short stint in a relatively plush cell -- no warden who valued his pension would let Polanski struggle among the sodomites for his 45 day stay -- this would all have gone away.
Who was giving him legal advice?
Crazed Rabbit
07-13-2010, 02:02
Apparently the sexual relation was consented AND the girl has already asked the court to drop the charges.
NO. There. Was. No. Consent.
The girl repeatedly asked him to stop as he plied her with drugs and alcohol, and then did terrible things.
Yes, now, years later the victim wants the charges dropped because she doesn't want to have to go through that time in her life. Understandable, but justice demands he answer for his crimes.
But the child rapist still hasn't.
CR
I kept one eye on the wires today, waiting to see if Switzerland would cough up a better explanation. They never did. Too call their behavior pathetic implies a feeling of pathos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathos), which is much too generous for them. I guess "contempt" would be the best word, both for describing their actions and my reaction.
Don Corleone
07-13-2010, 03:01
These are the same people that took the Nazi gold deposits (aka gold filling ripped out of Jewish children's mouths with pliers) so the Nazis could fund their war efforts and inflict their horrors on every European country.... except for Switzerland that is....
Is anybody surprised that the Swiss are taking the lowest possible road? A morally bankrupt fugitive holing up in a morally bankrupt nation. Hand in glove I say.
Tellos Athenaios
07-13-2010, 03:40
Yes, a loss for justice in the USA.
But here is a question for you: what makes you think the Swiss have any (moral or other) obligation to the USA to extradite this man? The USA has no jurisdiction over anyone who is in Switzerland (even people from the USA are immune from USA law by virtue of being in Switzerland). The USA can merely ask the Swiss nicely and if the Swiss don't want to play that game, then too bad.
Sasaki Kojiro
07-13-2010, 03:45
Yes, a loss for justice in the USA.
But here is a question for you: what makes you think the Swiss have any (moral or other) obligation to the USA to extradite this man? The USA has no jurisdiction over anyone who is in Switzerland (even people from the USA are immune from USA law by virtue of being in Switzerland). The USA can merely ask the Swiss nicely and if the Swiss don't want to play that game, then too bad.
Err, is raping 13 year olds not wrong in switzerland? Of course it is. :inquisitive:
Why hasn't the CIA just kidnapped him already?
Centurion1
07-13-2010, 06:49
The cia doesn't deal with people like this first of all bedkar.
This man is filth and should be made to answer for his heinous crimes. Plus his movies blew so we aren't losing anyone important from the world of film.
True the swiss don't have to give him up. But what does that say about the swiss national character that they in essence defend this scum. I mean I expect celebrities to defend him they are brainless shells of people, its to be expected, but a lawful state government. Hell this isn't bleeding north korea or zimbabwe its flipping switzerland!
Meneldil
07-13-2010, 06:53
Err, is raping 13 year olds not wrong in switzerland? Of course it is. :inquisitive:
Yes it is. But as long as nobody wants to start a trial for it in Switzerland, then he's free. Since the girl said she dropped the charge, I can't see why the Swiss would hurt their business by doing it.
Now, since it's mostly Americans who've answered to the topic so far, I think I should warn you that the public opinion is quite torn about Polanski. He received almost unanimous support from the intelligentsia and he still has his aura of excellent movie maker. That certainly doesn't excuse anything, but this is to be taken into account. You all are getting mad over it on the other side of the pond. Here things aren't so clear cut.
Secondly, it's quite funny to see you all getting mad about it, when the US have repeatedly refused to abide to international law a few billion times. Now, you want to put some hollywood phoney in jail to look tough, Switzerland refuses and you get all crazy about it.
True the swiss don't have to give him up. But what does that say about the swiss national character that they in essence defend this scum. I mean I expect celebrities to defend him they are brainless shells of people, its to be expected, but a lawful state government. Hell this isn't bleeding north korea or zimbabwe its flipping switzerland!
What the hell man? The US supported and defended a bunch of dictators all over the world and it's alright. The Swiss defend a dude who's admited to have sex with an underage girl decades ago and it means Switzerland should dig itself into the ground? It's time to make a reality check.
The same applies to Don's comment. A large part of the Swiss population wanted the country to join France and UK in the war, and the country also became a heaven for people who fled and opposed the Nazis, at least until late 1943.
I certainly don't like Switzerland and its banking policies. But the amount of Switzerland-hate displayed in this topic is laughable.
Sasaki Kojiro
07-13-2010, 07:27
Yes it is. But as long as nobody wants to start a trial for it in Switzerland, then he's free. Since the girl said she dropped the charge, I can't see why the Swiss would hurt their business by doing it.
You know...justice, morality that sort of thing. :book:
Now, since it's mostly Americans who've answered to the topic so far, I think I should warn you that the public opinion is quite torn about Polanski. He received almost unanimous support from the intelligentsia and he still has his aura of excellent movie maker. That certainly doesn't excuse anything, but this is to be taken into account. You all are getting mad over it on the other side of the pond. Here things aren't so clear cut.
What an understatement! How could things be clear cut, I mean on the one hand he drugged and raped 13 year old and on the other hand people are undecided and he makes good movies.
Secondly, it's quite funny to see you all getting mad about it, when the US have repeatedly refused to abide to international law a few billion times. Now, you want to put some hollywood phoney in jail to look tough, Switzerland refuses and you get all crazy about it.
Why so nationalist? I don't see what this has to do with the countries. I guess you are directing this at don even though it with the first set.
Yes it is. But as long as nobody wants to start a trial for it in Switzerland, then he's free. Since the girl said she dropped the charge, I can't see why the Swiss would hurt their business by doing it.
Because he's a child rapist.
Now, since it's mostly Americans who've answered to the topic so far, I think I should warn you that the public opinion is quite torn about Polanski. He received almost unanimous support from the intelligentsia and he still has his aura of excellent movie maker. That certainly doesn't excuse anything, but this is to be taken into account. You all are getting mad over it on the other side of the pond. Here things aren't so clear cut.
He's a child rapist. I, for one, don't care if he made good movies or not. He's a child rapist.
Secondly, it's quite funny to see you all getting mad about it, when the US have repeatedly refused to abide to international law a few billion times. Now, you want to put some hollywood phoney in jail to look tough, Switzerland refuses and you get all crazy about it.
Schoolyard rhetoric. "You did something wrong too, so you can't be outraged now!" Meh. He's a child rapist. No matter how many times the US have "refused to abid international law", that doesn't take away that we're talking about a child rapist. There's no excuse to protect the scumbag.
What the hell man? The US supported and defended a bunch of dictators all over the world and it's alright.
No, it's not allright, far from it. Next to that, what crimes the US have or have not committed is completely irrelevant. Polanski is a child rapist and hasn't served his sentence.
The Swiss defend a dude who's admited to have sex with an underage girl decades ago and it means Switzerland should dig itself into the ground? It's time to make a reality check.
The "dude" is a child rapist. There is no reason for protecting such scum. There are also no excuses.
The same applies to Don's comment. A large part of the Swiss population wanted the country to join France and UK in the war, and the country also became a heaven for people who fled and opposed the Nazis, at least until late 1943.
I certainly don't like Switzerland and its banking policies. But the amount of Switzerland-hate displayed in this topic is laughable.
Your amount of US-hate in this thread is totally misplaced and completely unnecessary. We're talking about a country protecting a child rapist. I fail to see how one can defend that.
Rhyfelwyr
07-13-2010, 10:54
All this country bashing is irrelevant. Sure the USA is far from perfect when it comes to abiding international law and protecting nasty figures. But this guy isn't some third word dictator, there's no politics involved, so why can't two western, developed nations work together to put a child rapist and escaped felon behind bars?
These are the same people that took the Nazi gold deposits (aka gold filling ripped out of Jewish children's mouths with pliers) so the Nazis could fund their war efforts and inflict their horrors on every European country.... except for Switzerland that is....
Is anybody surprised that the Swiss are taking the lowest possible road? A morally bankrupt fugitive holing up in a morally bankrupt nation. Hand in glove I say.
Why haven't you extradited the scum that abducted other countries' citizens, tortured them in secret places and then locked them up in a concentration camp without trial? And now you're throwing a tantrum because that small country dares not to bow to the will of the mighty, moral US of A, while it may have been better had he been extradited, it's quite pathetic to see US citizens get worked up over this issue and compare Switzerland to North Korea etc. because of one single case.
Meh, I think he should serve his sentence but I do wonder why the US were unable to provide the court sentence when they were asked for it repeatedly?
You already managed to get that drug baron from marihuana island against the will of their people, now you didn't get someone and the concerned country as a whole joins the "axis of evil" or what? :dizzy2:
Or to add another sentence, you do the sovereign nation dance every 4th of July, yet when another nation acts as a sovereign nation instead of your vassal you get angry and compare them to the nazis, the terrorists and whatever else is bad in the world. :dizzy2:
Hint: I'm not linking the USAs' behaviour to the guilt or innocence of Roman Polanski, I'm just ourtraged at some of the comments and comparisons here.
If Roman Polanski is guilty, he should obviously serve his sentence.
rory_20_uk
07-13-2010, 10:56
On a personal level the child rapist should go to jail. I don't care what he does with 100 nude, nubile 18 year olds - paid or otherwise, male or female. I'd even have some sympathy with 16-17 as yes, sexual development is not a switch at 18. BUT 13 is even for a drug soaked letch too far.
But as has been pointed out, the underlying message again appears to be that in the USA there is a price on justice. If you can afford the price, you can buy it off, whether George Bush's drugs / alcohol or Paris's drugs charges and of course dear old Roman.
Let's face it, what chance would any non-famous escaped kiddie-****** in running to Europe?
The girl dropped the case. So what? It is still a criminal matter as he broke the law, her likely payoff notwithstanding.
He's lived most of his life in France since this event. They never even bothered to arrest him and wriggle out of doing anything.
~:smoking:
Everyone I know believes he is a scumbag paedo who happens to have more than a little skill in making movies. Unsurprisingly they think the former outweighs the latter. In the rarified air of the film industry (and to some extent the arts in general) the balance appears to have swung the other way. How anyone can justify this fugitive's continuing liberty is beyond me. Frankly even the original sentence seems bizarre, let alone the current situation.
Well, if the USA care so much about locking him up, why did they set him free, allowing him to escape in the first place? A flaw in the US justice system, unfortunate circumstances or maybe they didn't care as much back then?
Well, if the USA care so much about locking him up, why did they set him free, allowing him to escape in the first place? A flaw in the US justice system, unfortunate circumstances or maybe they didn't care as much back then?
He fled.
It may come as a surprise to you, but convicted criminals sometimes run away! Bad criminals, running away just like that :no: Well, they are criminals for something, I guess.
But when such fleeing convicted criminals who still have to serve their sentence are spotted in another country, they can be arrested by that country and send back to the country they ran away from! Wonderful!
And then you have spoil sports like Switzerland, who refuse to send such a criminal back!
With Polanski, we're talking about a child rapist. Most civilised people consider child rape as one of the lowest and despicable crimes, if not thé lowest and despicable crime, one can commit.
Therefore, it is perfectly understandable that people are outraged by the refusal of Switzerland to send Polanski back to the US, so that he can serve his time in jail.
What all the country bashing in this thread has to do with it, is something I, for one, do not understand. How the fact that this particular child rapist has a talent for making movies is relevant, I do not understand either.
And if Switzerland just wanted to show the world that its' penis is larger than the American one, then they picked about the worst possible case to demonstrate it.
tibilicus
07-13-2010, 12:59
I will be first to support the idea that the US has pretty odd ideas of extradition deals. For example, the current extradition deal with the UK is pretty bizarre, whereby it is extremely hard for us to get permission to extradite from the US but the process of extraditing from the UK is relatively straight forward.
This, however, isn't the point. We're not talking about a criminal who may have done something but one who has been found guilty of one charge and fled the court date for the more serious charges brought against him. The argument about the USA and it's concept of sovereignty and perceived "bullying" nature is also irrelevant. This guy raped a child, a crime recognised as severe in every single western nation and in most non-western nations. The Swiss should have a moral duty to extradite, not just because it's wrong, but because they are harbouring a criminal they would otherwise condemn by their own legal system. If any one else living in Switzerland raped a child they would be arrested and imprisoned. Just because the crime was committed in another country doesn't mean this man should be considered free.
The USA has no jurisdiction over anyone who is in Switzerland (even people from the USA are immune from USA law by virtue of being in Switzerland).
Incorrect. The US has jurisdiction over:
1) Anyone who commits a crime inside the United States or on US territory.
2) Anyone who commits a crime against a United States citizen, even if that crime occurred outside the United States.
3) Any United States citizen, regardless of what they have done, where they did it, and who they did it to.
The US has jurisdiction over Polanski under #1. Switzerland's failure to hand him over has nothing to do with jurisdiction, that's an entirely separate issue from extradition.
Skullheadhq
07-13-2010, 14:02
The victim was okay with it, repeatadly stated that the charges should be dropped, compensation has been payed, well then, nothing to see here, move along.
Hosakawa Tito
07-13-2010, 14:06
Well, if the USA care so much about locking him up, why did they set him free, allowing him to escape in the first place? A flaw in the US justice system, unfortunate circumstances or maybe they didn't care as much back then?
He jumped bail and has been living in France ever since. Apparently the French government feel that serving 42 days for raping a child is punishment enough, and besides he's an artist and famous and all that...
So, after all this time, why did the Swiss government decide to arrest him? You don't suppose that maybe they wanted to use him as a bargaining chip in their legal dispute with the US over their banking system abetting tax evaders...nah, probably not.
To celebrate such a triumph over the mean old US I think all his supporters should send their teenage daughters over to Pedolanski's chalet for a sleep over party.
Playing the Devil's advocate.
Switzerland-US extradition treaty. (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_documents&docid=f:td009.104.pdf)
Didn't read all of it, but article 2, 1, paragraph 2 seems clear enough:
When the request to extradition relates to a person who has been convicted, extradition shall be granted only if the duration of the penalty or detention order, or their aggregate, still to be served amounts to at least six months.
I believe it was already said in this thread that Polanski was convicted to 90 days (less than 6 months, how did that scumbag get away with a sentence of only 90 days?) ?
Are there still charges against him for which there hasn't been a trial yet?
I believe it was already said in this thread that Polanski was convicted to 90 days (less than 6 months, how did that scumbag get away with a sentence of only 90 days?) ?
Are there still charges against him for which there hasn't been a trial yet?
Polanski was never sentenced. The time he served in jail was for psychiatric evaluation prior to the trial. He was released after the evaluation was over but before the sentencing hearing. He heard a rumor that he was going to be given a long sentence (he expected only probation), so he fled the country. As of today, he has been convicted but hasn't had his sentencing hearing yet because he fled the country.
Hosakawa Tito
07-13-2010, 14:47
Polanski extradition rejected (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704288204575362520214857914.html?mod=WSJ_World_LEFTSecondNews).
Mr. Polanski's lawyers have argued that the judge in charge of the case in 1977 assured them that the 42 days of detention their client had served in the psychiatric unit of a California jail was all the time he should expect to spend incarcerated. Instead, suspecting that he would receive a longer term at sentencing, Mr. Polanski fled the country.
In recent months, Mr. Polanski's lawyers asked a State Superior Court in Los Angeles to sentence Mr. Polanski in absentia, in order to determine whether he had in fact already served out his sentence. But the court denied the request as long as Mr. Polanski was a fugitive.
He did 42 days in a psychiatric unit, was let out on bail till his sentencing trial date and fled the country. Jumping bail is an additional offence, and in this case would be considered a felony.
Why haven't you extradited the scum that abducted other countries' citizens, tortured them in secret places and then locked them up in a concentration camp without trial? And now you're throwing a tantrum because that small country dares not to bow to the will of the mighty, moral US of A, while it may have been better had he been extradited, it's quite pathetic to see US citizens get worked up over this issue and compare Switzerland to North Korea etc. because of one single case.
I would like to see Kissinger extradited to Chile. :grin:
Polanski was never sentenced. The time he served in jail was for psychiatric evaluation prior to the trial. He was released after the evaluation was over but before the sentencing hearing. He heard a rumor that he was going to be given a long sentence (he expected only probation), so he fled the country. As of today, he has been convicted but hasn't had his sentencing hearing yet because he fled the country.
Aha. I take it that the crimes he committed are punishable with deprivation of liberty for more than a year. Which means that, according to the treaty, Switzerland is obliged to extradite Mr. Polanski.
rory_20_uk
07-13-2010, 15:30
But as yet as there is no current outstanding sentence they don't.
If the USA were to sentence him in absentia then they would have to extradite him.
~:smoking:
If the USA were to sentence him in absentia then they would have to extradite him.
Anybody have a clue as to why this hasn't happened? What is the impediment to sentencing Polanski?
rory_20_uk
07-13-2010, 15:37
My guess would be: powerful friends.
~:smoking:
But as yet as there is no current outstanding sentence they don't.
If the USA were to sentence him in absentia then they would have to extradite him.
~:smoking:
He has been charged and (according to Wiki), the charges are still pending.
According to the treaty, the countries agreed to extradite persons who have been charged with an "extraditable offense" (=definition is in the next article; crimes that are punishable with jail time exceeding one year; I assume rape is such a crime). Being charged with is enough; it's not necessary to be sentenced already.
Aha. I take it that the crimes he committed are punishable with deprivation of liberty for more than a year. Which means that, according to the treaty, Switzerland is obliged to extradite Mr. Polanski.
He can be sentenced to a maximum of 50 years.
Anybody have a clue as to why this hasn't happened? What is the impediment to sentencing Polanski?
Well, article 7 of the treaty is vague enough to allow Switzerland to refuse the extradition in case of a sentencing "in absentia", if the US doesn't give enough "assurances" of the persons' rights of defense. So, not sentencing him in absentia, probably isn't a bad move.
Then again, the treaty is from 1990 and Polanski ran away in 1978, so it's not likely that said article of said treaty was the rationale behind not sentencing him in absentia.
However, the smart thing to do now, is not sentencing him in absentia, because then Switzerland has no legal grounds whatsoever to refuse the extradition.
rory_20_uk
07-13-2010, 15:46
I stand corrected :bow:
~:smoking:
Sasaki Kojiro
07-13-2010, 17:36
Why haven't you extradited the scum that abducted other countries' citizens, tortured them in secret places and then locked them up in a concentration camp without trial? And now you're throwing a tantrum because that small country dares not to bow to the will of the mighty, moral US of A, while it may have been better had he been extradited,
Don't bring nationalism into it. You guys are the only ones who see it that way. I've never met or even heard of an American who would throw a tantrum just because a small country acts independently. The objection is because of the particulars of polanski's act.
it's quite pathetic to see US citizens get worked up over this issue and compare Switzerland to North Korea etc. because of one single case.
"this isn't north korea" is comparing switzerland to north korea? :dizzy2:
Meh, I think he should serve his sentence but I do wonder why the US were unable to provide the court sentence when they were asked for it repeatedly?
TinCow answered that previously.
Hint: I'm not linking the USAs' behaviour to the guilt or innocence of Roman Polanski, I'm just ourtraged at some of the comments and comparisons here.
If Roman Polanski is guilty, he should obviously serve his sentence.
Yes, you aren't linking it, you're trying talk about it as if the US was trying to extradite someone for marijuana use.
Tellos Athenaios
07-13-2010, 19:11
Incorrect. The US has jurisdiction over:
1) Anyone who commits a crime inside the United States or on US territory.
2) Anyone who commits a crime against a United States citizen, even if that crime occurred outside the United States.
3) Any United States citizen, regardless of what they have done, where they did it, and who they did it to.
The US has jurisdiction over Polanski under #1. Switzerland's failure to hand him over has nothing to do with jurisdiction, that's an entirely separate issue from extradition.
The same holds true for any country, simply substitute the country name. No, the point is that there is a concept of “primacy” of jurisdiction: e.g. in the Neterlands it is Dutch law that even a US citizen will have to abide by, or risk prosecution under Dutch law -- even if under USA law there would be no case to answer to (e.g. carrying guns). In Switzerland, it is the Swiss version of law which matters.
@Sasaki: I am not arguing that what Roman Polanski did is not deserving of extradition (not to mention proper punishment). I'm arguing that the Swiss run their own independent country and therefore that they get to decide who is extradited from Switzerland and who isn't. The specific charges are not all that relevant to this.
@Rory: Polanski is a French citizen so he cannot be extradited from France (legal protection). The USA could've asked the French to launch charges of their own, but the USA didn't do this. So that's what, 42 years of not doing anything about it... ?
Sasaki Kojiro
07-13-2010, 19:42
@Sasaki: I am not arguing that what Roman Polanski did is not deserving of extradition (not to mention proper punishment). I'm arguing that the Swiss run their own independent country and therefore that they get to decide who is extradited from Switzerland and who isn't. The specific charges are not all that relevant to this.
This argument is simply "if you can do it, it is ok for you to do it". But no one is suggesting that they aren't the ones who decide who gets extradited. The very premise of the thread is that they decide who gets extradited. But whether their decision was good or not--that is the topic of the thread. It's all about the specific charges :inquisitive:
No, the point is that there is a concept of “primacy” of jurisdiction: e.g. in the Neterlands it is Dutch law that even a US citizen will have to abide by, or risk prosecution under Dutch law -- even if under USA law there would be no case to answer to (e.g. carrying guns). In Switzerland, it is the Swiss version of law which matters.
...
I'm arguing that the Swiss run their own independent country and therefore that they get to decide who is extradited from Switzerland and who isn't. The specific charges are not all that relevant to this.
Those are prefectly fair statements, but it doesn't really change the fact that Switzerland appears to have gotten cold feet about this situation and backed out to save their own reputation.
@Rory: Polanski is a French citizen so he cannot be extradited from France (legal protection). The USA could've asked the French to launch charges of their own, but the USA didn't do this. So that's what, 42 years of not doing anything about it... ?
The US has tried to prosecute him continuously since he fled. They tried to extradite him in '78 (UK), '86 (Canada), '94 (France), '05 (Thailand), and '07 (Israel) but failed to get him. With the exception of France (which does not extradite its own citizens), all those attempts failed because Polanski fled those countries before he could be caught and/or before the paperwork was complete. Polanksi has largely avoided extradition by keeping his movements very secret when he was in countries where he was at risk of being arrested and sent to the US. He typically did not announce his intentions to visit those countries and just showed up, did his business, and left quickly. There has also been an Interpol alert active on Polanski since 2002, which is the authority under which he was finally arrested in Switzerland. This is definitely not a case of the US being lazy about prosecuting him.
PanzerJaeger
07-13-2010, 21:13
I thoroughly enjoyed The Pianist. :shrug:
He fled.
It may come as a surprise to you, but convicted criminals sometimes run away! Bad criminals, running away just like that :no: Well, they are criminals for something, I guess.
You cannot run away with four walls around you, neither can you run away if your guards stop you, that's why I asked how he could run away in the first place.
The article says he was locked up, then released, and left the country. So why was he released and then not locked up again before he could leave the country if he hadn't served his sentence yet?
You cannot run away with four walls around you, neither can you run away if your guards stop you, that's why I asked how he could run away in the first place.
The article says he was locked up, then released, and left the country. So why was he released and then not locked up again before he could leave the country if he hadn't served his sentence yet?
He was out on bail pending sentencing.
Don't bring nationalism into it. You guys are the only ones who see it that way. I've never met or even heard of an American who would throw a tantrum just because a small country acts independently. The objection is because of the particulars of polanski's act.
Don't bring Nazi gold and other weird accusations of moral decay into it. I for one don't know a single swiss person who owns Nazi gold, suffers from complete moral decay or supports a child rapist. You guys are the only one who see them that way. You can get angry about the whole denial but when you go and call the whole country nazi supporters and morally bankrupt etc. that's a bit much, isn't it?
And if I understand TinCow correctly, then the US justice system allowed him to buy himself out of prison with a lot of money, giving him enough time to flee. Does the system treat all very dangerous, child raping scumbags like that? :inquisitive:
Could he have fled without being rich/having rich friends?
He posted bail, which is generally allowed prior to sentencing to let the suspect sort things out before the trial/sentencing. Bail is generally set according to the crime, and can be denied outright if the suspect is a flight risk or dangerous. Bail is not a way to get out of a sentenced prison term.
I assume he used his own money for bail. Poorer suspects can get a bail-bondsman to post for them (with a small percentage put up by the suspect), but skipping bail on a bail-bondsman means both cops and bounty hunters will come after you.
I assume he used his own money for bail. Poorer suspects can get a bail-bondsman to post for them (with a small percentage put up by the suspect), but skipping bail on a bail-bondsman means both cops and bounty hunters will come after you.
What legality do bounty hunters have within the states?
And if I understand TinCow correctly, then the US justice system allowed him to buy himself out of prison with a lot of money, giving him enough time to flee. Does the system treat all very dangerous, child raping scumbags like that? :inquisitive:
Could he have fled without being rich/having rich friends?
Uh... the concept of Bail is pretty much universal in most modern nations. Germany uses it as well, so I'm confused by your surprise at the concept.
The basic idea is that incarcerating people is expensive. Since the accused is innocent until proven guilty, it is usually deemed acceptable to release them from prison (and thus free up prison space) until their trial. However, we of course do not want people to run away. So, depending on the circumstances of each individual case, the accused can be allowed to pay a certain amount of money to guarantee that they show up in court for their trial. The more serious the crime and the more likely a person is to flee, the greater the cost. People who are considered likely to run away will be denied bail altogether. If the person runs away, the money is forfeit until they re-appear. That is where bounty hunters fit in. They work for Bail Bondsmen, who employ them to go and catch people who have fled and thus forfeited the bail bondsman's money.
In the case of Polanski, he was not considered a flight risk. Who in their right mind would have expected a successful and famous Hollywood director to flee the United States and never come back for the next 33 years? It didn't seem likely at all, and the sheer spectacle of it is proven by the infamy that surrounds this case.
Don Corleone
07-14-2010, 04:10
Hi everyone,
Sorry, going to have to be brief, before one of the kids wakes up.
First, didn't mean to ruffle so many feathers. Didn't try to avoid it either, but it wasn't my intent to offend, just highlight facts.
Sure, the USA has done a lot of despicable things. As Andres pointed out, two wrongs don't make a right. If your only moral standard is "a CIA phoenix team has done worse and nobody has prosecuted them yet...", you're going to crawl through a sewer, on your belly.... Not trying to defend everything we've ever done.
I wasn't trying to fling pooh at the Swiss, I was trying to highlight a reality. Quite frankly, and my apologies to any Swiss here... they appear to my humble eye to have a national character of 'Anything for a buck'. I've been to Switzerland several times, its a lovely place and on a personal level, the people are quite affable and pleasant. Great engineers, great bankers, great education... yaddah yaddah.
But what has Switzerland ever stood for? Anything goes... they take anybody's money, raised any which way, no questions asked.
When the CIA does things like sell heroin to fund an illegal war, do you think they put their money in American banks? Nope. :switzerland: Not a legacy I'd want to be attached to.
By the way, sorry I touched a nerve Husar. Good to see you old friend. Hopefully I'll find a thread where I won't be peeing in your Cheerios and we can catch up there. :laugh4:
Seamus Fermanagh
07-14-2010, 04:39
What legality do bounty hunters have within the states?
They have a surprisingly broad range of action. Source (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bounty-hunters).
InsaneApache
07-14-2010, 05:07
Just so we remember, there was a little girl involved. Here's what she had to say at the time.
"Q. What did you do when he said, 'Let's go into the other room'?
A. I was going 'No, I think I better go home', because I was afraid. So I just went and I sat down on the couch.
Q. What were you afraid of?
A. Him.... He sat down beside me and asked if I was OK. I said 'No'.
Q. What did he say?
A. He goes 'Well, you'll be better'. And I go, 'No I won't. I have to go home. He said 'I'll take you home soon'.
Q. Then what happened?
A. Then he went down and he started performing cuddliness... I was kind of dizzy, you know, like things were kind of blurry sometimes. I was having trouble with my coordination... I wasn't fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go."
Q. Did he ask you about being on the pill?
A. He asked, he goes, 'Are you on the pill?' and I went, 'No' and he goes 'When did you have your period?' and I said, 'I don't know. A week or two. I'm not sure'... He goes, 'Come on. You have to remember'. And I told him I didn't.... and right after I said I was not on the pill... and he goes... and then he put me – wait. Then he lifted my legs up farther and he went in through my anus.
Q. Did you resist at that time?
A. A little bit, but not really, because...
Q. Because what?
A. Because I was afraid of him."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-lets-not-forget-what-polanski-did-1794717.html
Now I don't know about you lot but if some filth had done that to one of my grandaughters he'd count himself lucky that the police got him first.
Oh and the Swiss government should be ashamed of themselves. Along with the UK, Canada, France and one or two more 'enlightened' western governents.
That is all.
Not quite. Nice to see you around Senor Corleone. ~:wave:
Louis VI the Fat
07-14-2010, 06:34
Just fry him on a chair.
Even by the standards of the liberal, experimentative climate of 1970's artist circles, drugging and raping a 13 year old is too much.
As for the Swiss, and France and the others - blech. http://matousmileys.free.fr/headbang.gif
Who does the entertainment industry and the Euro intelligentsia think they are protecting? Marc Chagall in 1943? Well they failed back then too and have never shown a sign of improvement of their moral compass ever since.
The whole of Rome is on trial for paedophile scandals, but one of their own must be protected from the anti-artistic, brutal, conservatives and their neanderthal justice system.
Shame though, I too thought The Pianist was a great movie. I'd love to see it again, but can't bring myself to it. Wish I had known about Polanski's past before Hollywood gave him an Oscar.
Uh... the concept of Bail is pretty much universal in most modern nations. Germany uses it as well, so I'm confused by your surprise at the concept.
I'm surprised that he was allowed to post bail if he is such a disgusting person, he could have raped another girl thinking he'd end up in prison for a long time anyway.
See a lot of Euro bashing here. Can someone remind me who took his Oscar for him and bring it to him?
Yes, he should be put in jail. But as far as I know, the US failled to fulfill the paper work properly, so teh Swiss had no choice than to refuse.
As the so-called intelligentsia, with BHL as head, when they made a point you sure it is the wrong one. Like a compass showing the South.
Crazed Rabbit
07-14-2010, 07:57
Now, since it's mostly Americans who've answered to the topic so far, I think I should warn you that the public opinion is quite torn about Polanski. He received almost unanimous support from the intelligentsia
That says a lot more about those 'intelligentsia' than anything else.
and he still has his aura of excellent movie maker. That certainly doesn't excuse anything, but this is to be taken into account. You all are getting mad over it on the other side of the pond. Here things aren't so clear cut.
Taken into account? Like, a mitigating circumstance? "Oh, he raped kids, but we French intelligentsia like his films, so he doesn't deserve a big punishment."?
**** that.
CR
I'm surprised that he was allowed to post bail if he is such a disgusting person, he could have raped another girl thinking he'd end up in prison for a long time anyway.
I think you're being very unfair now. At the time, there was no indication whatsoever that Polanski would flee the country to escape sentence. It was a perfectly reasonable decision.
Regardless, it doesn't take away the facts that a) according to the bilateral treaty between the US and Switerland, Switzerland is obliged to extradite Polanski; their reasons for refusing it are very poor excuses; b) Polanski is a child rapist for :daisy:'s sake. Give me one good reason to protect that kind of scum. Read the quote in post #56 first.
Roman Polanski is a paedophile.
rory_20_uk
07-14-2010, 16:20
I don't think he is - after all he's... had a vast army of women. He's a rake who isn't that concerned with matters such as the age of consent, probably only the onset of puberty.
~:smoking:
I think you're being very unfair now. At the time, there was no indication whatsoever that Polanski would flee the country to escape sentence. It was a perfectly reasonable decision.
Regardless, it doesn't take away the facts that a) according to the bilateral treaty between the US and Switerland, Switzerland is obliged to extradite Polanski; their reasons for refusing it are very poor excuses; b) Polanski is a child rapist for :daisy:'s sake. Give me one good reason to protect that kind of scum. Read the quote in post #56 first.
When it's a swiss judge letting him go free, he's a child-raping scumbag, when it's a US judge letting him go for a few days on a bailout, there was no reason to believe he could do anything against the law?
Jörg Kachelmann (http://www.thelocal.de/national/20100322-26043.html) for example has been charged with raping his girlfriend, he has been in custody for like three months now and hasn't been let go because he is still under suspicion to have committed a serious crime. I just think that if an alleged crime has a certain severity, it makes little sense to let someone go on a bailout, especially if they can easily afford it.
When it's a swiss judge letting him go free, he's a child-raping scumbag, when it's a US judge letting him go for a few days on a bailout, there was no reason to believe he could do anything against the law?
Jörg Kachelmann (http://www.thelocal.de/national/20100322-26043.html) for example has been charged with raping his girlfriend, he has been in custody for like three months now and hasn't been let go because he is still under suspicion to have committed a serious crime. I just think that if an alleged crime has a certain severity, it makes little sense to let someone go on a bailout, especially if they can easily afford it.
It was part of the plea agreement. Polanksi agreed to plead guilty to the crime and undergo a 90 day psych evaluation in a state facility. In return, all but one of the charges agains him were dropped. As part of the plea agreement, his evaluation was delayed so that he could remain free and finishing working on a project he was in the middle of. He went to Germany, finished the project, then returned to the US to undergo his psych evaluation. After 42 days, he was released because the psych evaluation was felt to be completed and further jail time was not recommended by the psychiatrist. That is the point at which he fled.
Under these circumstances, there was really no expectation on anyone's part that he would run away. He had already pled guilty, gone to Europe, and come back to serve his psych evaluation period without any problems whatsoever. He was world famous and his entire career was centered in Hollywood. As far as I am concerned, he was about as low a flight risk as anyone there has ever been. The system of bail generally works. The simple fact that Polanski unexpectedly fled and has successfully evaded capture for 33 years does not change the facts as they were when he was released. Polanski was simply not considered a flight risk. Saying otherwise is arguing with hindsight.
Don Corleone
07-14-2010, 18:08
I don't know how the bail system works in Germany, so I cannot say what the comparison should be. But in the U.S. legal system, there is a fundamental concept called "presumption of innocence". In other words, until the State can actually prove that you're guilty, you're not. It's almost as though at the moment you're found guilty, by a jury or by a judge, you're almost imbued with the 'guilt', even though you may have committed the crime itself several months or years earlier. Because of this presumption, people that are awaiting a verdict (either a trial or entering a plea-agreement) are still expected to be treated as innocent, and therefore, is allowed to remain free until the 'magic moment'.
Now, we're not idiots, and many folks awaiting a verdict flee. So we require you to post a guarantee, conmensurate with the severity of your crime and how likely you are to flee. It was in this limbo that Polanski found himself when he fled the country. He was going to enter a plea, believing that he we would be released on "time served", he had already been incarcerated for the duration of the sentance, or the rest would be probated.
However, once he fled, any expectation of bail and freedom while expecting sentancing evaporated. Another fundamental legal principle in the US is that the court, any court, can order anybody, anywhere, anytime to appear before it. Failure to do so is an immediate crime. You will be immediately incarcerated and you can be kept incarcerated until the whim of the judge shifts to allow you out. It was this principle at work that compelled our former President, William Jefferson Clinton, to give a deposition on creative uses for cigars and stain-removal tips for blue-dresses.
What I'm getting at is our courts didn't have the right to keep Polanski under lock-and-key until he plead guilty and received a sentance or he fled the jurisdiction. He did the second before the first could be done. It doesn't sound as though things work the same in Germany.
When it's a swiss judge letting him go free, he's a child-raping scumbag, when it's a US judge letting him go for a few days on a bailout, there was no reason to believe he could do anything against the law?
Jörg Kachelmann (http://www.thelocal.de/national/20100322-26043.html) for example has been charged with raping his girlfriend, he has been in custody for like three months now and hasn't been let go because he is still under suspicion to have committed a serious crime. I just think that if an alleged crime has a certain severity, it makes little sense to let someone go on a bailout, especially if they can easily afford it.
Hosakawa Tito
07-14-2010, 18:21
When it's a swiss judge letting him go free, he's a child-raping scumbag, when it's a US judge letting him go for a few days on a bailout, there was no reason to believe he could do anything against the law he's still a baby raping scumbag!
Fixed it for ya. He got a sweetheart plea deal, 90 days in a psychiatric hospital of which he only served 42 days, for child molestation, all other charges promised to be dropped. That's a travesty in it's own right, and he knew it. So instead of facing the music at sentencing *because hey, maybe somebody might bring that travesty of justice thing up* the baby raping bail jumping coward fled, and has been looking over his shoulder ever since. I hope every time the doorbell or phone rings, when he suddenly sees a cop or hears a siren, he breaks out in a bit of a cold sweat and his sphincter tightens up. Roman, be sure that your sins will find you out.
Meneldil
07-14-2010, 19:10
Your amount of US-hate in this thread is totally misplaced and completely unnecessary. We're talking about a country protecting a child rapist. I fail to see how one can defend that.
Yada yada. He's a child rapist, fine. And then?
I don't give a damn about Roman Polanski. I'm actually in favor of him being sent to the US to face a trial and find the people who protect him quite disgusting.
But I'm certainly not in favor of Americans going all "ZOMGWTFBBQ" and starting some Swiss-hate madness because Switzerland refuses to extradites one person who's not even guilty of murder.
How many dictators have been supported by the US? How many criminals have been protected by the US? How many people have been killed because of your the US, France, Belgium?
Take back your "morally bankrupt nation" and other similar nation bashing, have a drink, cool down and then I might agree with you all.
Bash Polanski and the people who protect him (that includes most of the french intelligentsia) all you want, but bashing Switzerland isn't going to help your cause.
And yes, people who don't play by the rules have no right to feel outraged when someone else does the same. It's called (not) having a moral high ground.
Actually, what's going on here is quite silly and disgusting. Nobody cares about his victim or even about justice. The main issue here is trying to look tough on the international scene. Since Polanski is kind of a big-deal, it's all about either:
- showing that none can escape the almighty, fair but blind US justice
or
- showing that the Switzerland will stand for freedom and resist the tyrannical US
I say forget Polanski and start bothering about war criminals and dictators. That will be so much more useful.
InsaneApache
07-14-2010, 20:12
I don't blame the septics for being upset.
The man drugged and raped a child. If it doesn't make all right minded people angry, then I'm flummoxed as to what will.
:shame:
KukriKhan
07-14-2010, 20:14
Imagine this guy's inner-life: parents in concentration camps, living under a false name as a catholic, married to a succession of actresses - one of whom, pregnant, gets murdered by the Manson cult, middle-aged "boyfriend" of several juvenile females, acclaimed film-maker, fugitive from justice, millionaire...
no one would believe the details of such a life were it written as a character in one of his stories. I don't know how he faces himself in the mirror when it's time to shave in the morning. The demons that must plague him.
For a finale, at age 80 he should fly to LA and turn himself in for the final 48 days of his sentence, serving the time with Manson and my own local serial girl-killer John Gardner at Corcoran State Prison.
InsaneApache
07-14-2010, 20:21
No one is denying that he had a terrible life, however, and I feel very strongly about this, that's no daisying excuse for daisying up a young lasses life. Things like this don't go away for a lass. He gets 48 days and 30 odd years living the highlife.
She gets a life sentence. Nuff said.
I'll paraphrase you when you once said to me: "Bud, I agree with almost everything you say....but in this case you're wrong" :bow:
KukriKhan
07-14-2010, 20:59
Then I have communicated badly, and led you to believe I harbour even a scintilla of sympathy for this coward.
I merely wanted to look at the case from another angle, the lads here having beaten the "filthy-paedo" drum loudly (and rightly) so far.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.