Looks like Polanski will get away again.

AvalonXQ said:
Polanski claims that the judge agreed to a plea bargain, at which time he pled guilty, at which time the judge changed his mind and was going to increase his sentence, so he fled.
Apparently the Swiss asked for sealed testimony regarding Polanski's sentencing -- which I'm guessing would help evaluate whether Polanski's claim of being screwed with by the American judiciary has any merit. The U.S. didn't provide the testimony, so the Swiss refuse to extradite.
This seems quite reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Sentencing is one thing which is 100% up to the discretion of a Judge. In a plea negotiation the most a DA can do is give a sentencing recommendation. A vast majority of the time the Judge agrees to it, but he is not bound by law to do so.
 
EvilSmurf said:
You are aware he drugged her, and she told him "NO!"? That's rape in anyone's book IMO.
Click to expand...

Not only that, he sodomised her, which I believe was because he was worried about getting her pregnant.

A real charmer is Mr Polanski.

I like Chinatown, great movie, but Polanski shouldn't be allowed to get away with this.
 
Assuming that the 1990 treaty is still in effect, the treaty requires the Requesting State to furnish proper documentation (Article 9), and the Requested State can require additional documentation if this is deemed insufficient (Article 10). This appears to be what happened here.
Otherwise all the particulars seem to be in order.

EDIT: Thanks to DC for providing that link.
 
Last edited:
AvalonXQ said:
Assuming that the 1990 treaty is still in effect, the treaty requires the Requesting State to furnish proper documentation (Article 9), and the Requested State can require additional documentation if this is deemed insufficient (Article 10). This appears to be what happened here.
Otherwise all the particulars seem to be in order.

EDIT: Thanks to DC for providing that link.
Click to expand...

So it seems like the trick is convince the place you are in that any documentation that is provided is not sufficient.
 
EvilSmurf said:
Sentencing is one thing which is 100% up to the discretion of a Judge. In a plea negotiation the most a DA can do is give a sentencing recommendation. A vast majority of the time the Judge agrees to it, but he is not bound by law to do so.
Click to expand...

... and if a judge tricked him into agreeing to a plea based on what my sentence would be, and then "reconsidered", I have no issue with him choosing to flee the country rather than submit to it. I also have no issue with another country failing to extradite under these facts.
 
EvilSmurf said:
Sentencing is one thing which is 100% up to the discretion of a Judge. In a plea negotiation the most a DA can do is give a sentencing recommendation. A vast majority of the time the Judge agrees to it, but he is not bound by law to do so.
Click to expand...

Hell there are cases that a judge reduced the crime that the person plead guilty to.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So it seems like the trick is convince the place you are in that any documentation that is provided is not sufficient.
Click to expand...

Under the treaty, there would be no basis for extradition if Polanski's sentence had already been completed.
There were documents relevant to this argument that the U.S. withheld -- not didn't have, but had and refused to share.
The other country won't give me relevant paperwork but expects me to give them a prisoner? Fat chance.
 
AvalonXQ said:
... and if a judge tricked him into agreeing to a plea based on what my sentence would be, and then "reconsidered", I have no issue with him choosing to flee the country rather than submit to it. I also have no issue with another country failing to extradite under these facts.
Click to expand...

Oh...so he will admit he did it if the sentence is X, but won't admit to it if the sentence is Y? I'm sorry, guilty is guilty...and "I did it, but I'll only admit it if I get sentence X" is just another way of saying "I'm guilty". Secondly, shouldn't the fact he has thumbed his nose at the Justice system for 30+ years now be evidence enough to formulate a new sentence?
 
AvalonXQ said:
... and if a judge tricked him into agreeing to a plea based on what my sentence would be, and then "reconsidered", I have no issue with him choosing to flee the country rather than submit to it. I also have no issue with another country failing to extradite under these facts.
Click to expand...

The thing is, it is the prosecutor who makes the plea agreement not the judge. It works like this

"If you plead guilty to offence X, we will drop charges Y and Z, and recommend to the judge a sentence of N."

The judge can throw out X and replace it with a lower charge, throw it all out, or give any sentence for the crime of X that they want. Now some crimes have maximum sentences so that will limit the judges decision.
 
Wonder if this will impede his movements. Are they the US authorities now likely to continue the case if he should happen to travel to another country which has an extradiction treaty, or say enough is enough?
 
EvilSmurf said:
Oh...so he will admit he did it if the sentence is X, but won't admit to it if the sentence is Y? I'm sorry, guilty is guilty...and "I did it, but I'll only admit it if I get sentence X" is just another way of saying "I'm guilty".
Click to expand...

Yeah, see, it doesn't actually work that way. Maybe he did it, and maybe he didn't. Both the guilty and the innocent cop to plea bargains, so as not to fight it in court and wind up with a much worse sentence.
Using the fact that he was willing to not go to court providing the resulting sentence was lenient to argue that we should throw the book at him -- well, that's the kind of naive thinking that finally does, in my mind, justify Polanski's decision to run away.
 
To repeat what is in the article :

Refusal to grant record insight
In the framework of the extradition proceedings, on 3rd March 2010, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) asked the USA authorities to substantiate the extradition request by supplying the records of a hearing carried out on 26th January 2010 by the public prosecutor, Roger Gunson, who was in charge of the case in the seventies. The records should prove that, in a meeting held on 19th September 1977, the judge in charge at the time had expressly assured the representatives of the parties that the 42 days of detention spent by Roman Polanski in the psychiatric unit of a Californian prison represented the whole term of imprisonment he was condemned to.If this were the case, Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the US extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation.

The request of the FOJ to supply the records was rejected by the US Justice Department on 13th May 2010 due to a court ruling, according to which the records had to be kept secret. In these circumstances it is not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty that Roman Polanski has already served the sentence he was condemned to at the time and that the extradition request is undermined by a serious fault. Considering the persisting doubts concerning the presentation of the facts of the case, the request has to be rejected.
Click to expand...

Really what Polanski did isn't right. But OTOH that the extradition failed, has only the USA as fault, which refused to provide the documentation, and not Swiss, which respected the law to the letter.
 
EvilSmurf said:
Oh...so he will admit he did it if the sentence is X, but won't admit to it if the sentence is Y? I'm sorry, guilty is guilty...and "I did it, but I'll only admit it if I get sentence X" is just another way of saying "I'm guilty". Secondly, shouldn't the fact he has thumbed his nose at the Justice system for 30+ years now be evidence enough to formulate a new sentence?
Click to expand...

Misrepresentation.

Judge X say "if you admit it will be 42 days". He admit and plead guilty. then judge says "well sorry I changed my mind".

You might see no issue with that, but some of us see issue with that, no matter if it is polanski, or anybody non celeb.
 
So you think it is alright for criminals to make a run for it if they decide that they don't like the deal they are given? The judge had not indicated we wasn't going to give him the deal the prosecution outlined, it was only his opinion that he wasn't going to get a "fair deal" for raping the 13-year old.

I think it despicable that anyone would defend a man for running away aftger drugging and sodomizing a young girl because he was afraid he wasn't going to get the "deal" he wanted.

You cannot run out on the US legal system because you think it "unfair".
 
ponderingturtle said:
The thing is, it is the prosecutor who makes the plea agreement not the judge. It works like this

"If you plead guilty to offence X, we will drop charges Y and Z, and recommend to the judge a sentence of N."

The judge can throw out X and replace it with a lower charge, throw it all out, or give any sentence for the crime of X that they want. Now some crimes have maximum sentences so that will limit the judges decision.
Click to expand...

The things is, if you read, in this case it was the judge assuring ALL party (assuming prosecutor too) that it would respect the agreement, and seemingly refuse to do afterward. And the US refusing to disclose documentation on this.
 
Aepervius said:
Misrepresentation.

Judge X say "if you admit it will be 42 days". He admit and plead guilty. then judge says "well sorry I changed my mind".

You might see no issue with that, but some of us see issue with that, no matter if it is polanski, or anybody non celeb.
Click to expand...

But that never happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom