Roman Polanski- No Justice Needed

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

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.

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."

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. >_<

Sounds like somone in US should lose there job so if they can't fill out an extradition form properly

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

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.

Why hasn't the CIA just kidnapped him already?

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!

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Err, is raping 13 year olds not wrong in switzerland? Of course it is.

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.

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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.

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 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.

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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.

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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.

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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.

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Husar

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 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Husar

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.