Roman Polanski- No Justice Needed

**tibilicus** · 07-12-2010, 20:12

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/...ki-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/commentisf...adite-swiss-us

**Lemur** · 07-12-2010, 20:15

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.

**Jolt** · 07-12-2010, 20:15

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.

**Lemur** · 07-12-2010, 20:19

Originally Posted by Jolt

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:

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."

**Jolt** · 07-12-2010, 21:02

Originally Posted by Lemur

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:

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

**TinCow** · 07-12-2010, 22:26

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

**drone** · 07-12-2010, 21:31

Originally Posted by Jolt

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.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 07-13-2010, 02:02

Originally Posted by Jolt

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

**Lemur** · 07-13-2010, 02:07

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, 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.

**Husar** · 07-13-2010, 10:55

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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?

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.

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.