Looks like Polanski will get away again.

Skeptic Guy said:
But that never happened.
Click to expand...

And all the U.S. had to do was turn over the evidence that showed what was actually said at the hearing.
Since the U.S. wouldn't do that, they failed their Articles 9 and 10 obligations, and the extradition was denied.
The U.S.'s refusal to turn over that material convinced me that Polanski is telling the truth about what happened. In which case, he served his sentence, and the story is over.
 
funny how nobody here had any troubles with Switzerland refusing to extradite an Algerian convicted in Algeria for Terrorism.
 
Skeptic Guy said:
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".
Click to expand...

No I think it is alright to have them on the run, if a DA make a deal, and the judge assure he will respect the deal, AND then drop the ball on it.

The whole point hinge on this : did the judge really insure the parties (defense and prosecution) that the 42 days would be the SOLE punishment, or did he not ?

And the USA *refused* to provide documentation whether this is the case or not.

Anyway if you ask my opinion on it, there should be no agreement for lesser prison sentence in case of sexual crime or murder. But *IF* something is agreed by DA, and defense, and agreed by a judge , then there should be no turn back.

The only obscure point (which the USA refused to clear up) is whether the agreement was with the DA only, or if as presented by Polanski, the judge did INDEED really agree to respect the agreement.

The swiss recognized that salient point, even if you do not wish. It seem the USA fully aware of the consequence, refused to provide the documetns. Draw the consequence of the refusal and sealing of documents yourself.
 
Last edited:
AvalonXQ said:
And all the U.S. had to do was turn over the evidence that showed what was actually said at the hearing.
Since the U.S. wouldn't do that, they failed their Articles 9 and 10 obligations, and the extradition was denied.
The U.S.'s refusal to turn over that material convinced me that Polanski is telling the truth about what happened. In which case, he served his sentence, and the story is over.
Click to expand...

Ditto for me. I still think he has come off too lightly as a personal opinion, but if it really happened as described, the US justice department can't protest too loudly for their own fault.
 
Skeptic Guy said:
But that never happened.
Click to expand...

That may well be the case and the USA had the opportunity to demonstrate this to the Swiss authorities however they apparently (the USA) decided not to provide the evidence that was required under the extradition treaty.

Personally I think he should have served a long time in prison for his crime but I also want to see that due process is followed. And I think it is important that due process is followed for a few reasons and one of them is that when it isn't it can result in someone who should be incarcerated being set free.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
If you read the court transcript of Polanski's plea bargain, it has the following:
Mr. Gunson: Do you understand that at this time the court has not made any decision as to what sentence you will receive
Defendant: (no response)
Mr. Gunson: Do you understand that the judge has not made any decision
Defendant: Yes
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea8.html

So, Polanski may have assumed he was not going to receive any more than the time served for his psychiatric evaluation, but he knew that that was certainly not a guarantee and that he could receive more time.

Edited to add: And frankly, given Polanski's actions/attitudes after he fled the country (making statements about how "everyone wants to have sex with young girls", dating other 'young' actresses, etc.) I do think that the psychiatric institution that claimed Polanski was at no risk of reoffending was probably wrong.

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...
First of all, keep in mind that that may not have been the only issue. For example, from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100712/ap_en_mo/roman_polanski
Polanski's extradition is a complicated and diplomatically sensitive because of Polanski's status as a cultural icon in France and Poland, where he holds dual citizenship, and his history as a Holocaust survivor whose first wife was murdered by crazed followers of cult leader Charles Manson in California.

Secondly, I wonder why exactly the Swiss would expect that that sealed testimony was relevant. Polanski's own transcript indicates that he knew he could receive a longer sentence, and most of the arguments that Polanski was 'screwed' seem to come more from the popular media rather than through legal means.
 
Last edited:
Cainkane1 said:
Whats so unsatisfying about it? The man drugged, sodomised and raped a 13 year old girl. He was tried and convicted after a fair trial. He would only have to stay in jail a few years. What makes him so special?
Click to expand...

He admits that he shared drugs with, and had unlawful sex with, a 13 year old girl. Whether or not the fact that she could be mistaken for an adult, the fact that she was already sexually active and the claim that she had used the drugs in question before count as a mitigating circumstances is a matter of opinion, but it was definitely illegal and he admitted he did it.

He allegedly sodomised and raped said 13 year old girl. He denies it, he was never convicted, and it's his word against hers.

Except that it's not strictly his word against hers - the forensic evidence gathered by a prompt medical examination showed so sign of the alleged sodomy and no trace of the alleged semen (graphically described in the statement where the girl accuses Polanski of rape).

We'll never know for sure what actually happened, but you are stating as fact what is merely on person's unsupported allegation which is at variance with the limited amount of hard evidence available.

EvilSmurf said:
You are aware he drugged her, and she told him "NO!"? That's rape in anyone's book IMO.
Click to expand...

You and Cainkane1 both use the slightly inflammatory spin of saying "he drugged her", which is technically correct but conveys the impression that he spiked her drink or something. They shared alcohol and a quaalude, but he didn't use force or deception to get her to use those drugs. It's illegal (and in my opinion immoral) to share such drugs with a thirteen year old, so there's no need for you to spin it so it seems even worse than it was.

Also like Cainkane1 you are stating as fact something which is merely an allegation, that she told him "NO!". If she in fact did say that, then he raped her. However he denies that happened, and it's his word against hers.

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

A real charmer is Mr Polanski.
Click to expand...

Again, that's what she said in her statement. However Polanski denied it and more importantly the forensic evidence showed no sign of the alleged sodomy or of the alleged semen deposited in the course of that act of sodomy.

Skeptic Guy said:
I think it despicable that anyone would defend a man for running away aftger drugging and sodomizing a young girl...
Click to expand...

Yeah, that would be despicable, if there was actually proof beyond reasonable doubt that he did that.
 
Segnosaur said:
If you read the court transcript of Polanski's plea bargain, it has the following:

...snip...

Secondly, I wonder why exactly the Swiss would expect that that sealed testimony was relevant. Polanski's own transcript indicates that he knew he could receive a longer sentence, and most of the arguments that Polanski was 'screwed' seem to come more from the popular media rather than through legal means.
Click to expand...

Are records usually sealed for no reason?
 
It seems that in the interests of justice we really need to enhance the wealthy's ability to flee the country after decisions that they don't like. That will make people happier.
 
Couldn't we just taze him in the nads every 30 seconds for a week, and call it even?
 
ponderingturtle said:
Evading justice is one of the main benefits of being in europe, just ask Ira Einhorn.
Click to expand...

That is a pretty bad example as 1) he was living under a false name and 2) the treaty between France and the USA had a a specific things about right of fair trial and 3) France refuse death penalty (abolished). ETA: and reading around 4) the problem of recognizing "in absentia" trial. But in the very end after 4 years He *WAS* extradited.

Soooo reallly bad example here. Now let us speak of the marine raping teenager in Okinawa, shall we? Or even the "private" security guy in Irak generating a massacre, but being protected from prosecution ?

Face it, it isn#t as easy and black and white as you wish to push it. It is all a load of steamy stinky gray, because of the complexity of local laws and extradition treaty.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
That is a pretty bad example as 1) he was living under a false name and 2) the treaty between France and the USA had a a specific things about right of fair trial and 3) France refuse death penalty (abolished). But in the evry end after 4 years He *WAS* extradited.

Soooo reallly bad example here. Now let us speak of the marine raping teenager in Okinawa, shall we?
Click to expand...

Sure, turn the bastard over.

Or even the "private" security guy in Irak generating a massacre, but being protected from prosecution ?
Click to expand...

Hang em.
Face it, it isn#t as easy and black and white as you wish to push it. It is all a load of steamy stinky gray, because of the complexity of local laws and extradition treaty.
Click to expand...

And how often those laws are specifically written to prevent justice.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Sure, turn the bastard over.



Hang em.


And how often those laws are specifically written to prevent justice.
Click to expand...

hang em? in many countries that would be a reason to refuse to "turn the bastard over" because of the death penalty. Different countries different opinions of what is justice.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Sure, turn the bastard over.



Hang em.


And how often those laws are specifically written to prevent justice.
Click to expand...

Woot. We agree on those two sentence (at least in the mental image ETA: figuratively speaking is the word i was searching for). As I said i think Polanski came up too lightly too.

The USA has its share of responsibility (it accepted the treaty !) and refuse very often to deliver its own national too.

I don't see an easy solution, except complying to the treaty.

And in this specific case the US department of justice refused to comply.
 
Last edited:
Hot off the (my) presses!

motivatore5d70add673a2652226f7adf46.jpg
 
well its not only the number one place for Americans :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom