Roman Polanski- No Justice Needed

Playing the Devil's advocate.

Switzerland-US extradition treaty.

Didn't read all of it, but article 2, 1, paragraph 2 seems clear enough:

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Polanski extradition rejected.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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?

My guess would be: powerful friends.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

I stand corrected :bow:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

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... ?

Quote:

---

@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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

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.

Quote:

---

@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.

I thoroughly enjoyed The Pianist. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

What legality do bounty hunters have within the states?

---

They have a surprisingly broad range of action. Source.

Just so we remember, there was a little girl involved. Here's what she had to say at the time.

Quote:

---

"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...d-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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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.

Quote:

---

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