Looks like Polanski will get away again.

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...

Umm, no. Polanski was never sentenced, so he cannot possibly have "served his sentence" in any possible sense of the phrase.
 
Aepervius said:
Segnosaur, who knows, but the USA decided to refuse to provide the transcript. Ask yourself why, if this was clear and cut and dry.
Click to expand...
Not being a direct participant in the case, I can only guess. I can think of a few alternatives (take them for what they were)...

- Perhaps the U.S. authorities didn't think that those particular documents were very important and/or the Swiss didn't emphasize the need for them. Thus, when it came time for the decision, the Swiss could have used it as an "out" in order to release Polanski and keep their european pedo-lovers happy.

- Or perhaps the U.S. assumed that it's own court system was sufficient to handle any such issues, and that it was not the job of the Swiss court system to second-guess American judges. (After all, even those the American court system has made mistakes, its not like your dealing with Saudi Arabia or any other legal hell hole. For the most part people's rights are respected)

- Perhaps there was information in the transcript that they felt might provide embarassment to the victim. (Even though she's been pretty much dragged through the media, there still may be some skeletons that they don't want released.)

We'll probably have to wait for some sort of official statement from U.S. officials before we know why those documents were not provided.

And keep in mind that those missing documents may not have been the only reason... For example, from: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-polanski-extradite-20100713,0,3649393.story
Also, Swiss authorities said that, until 2009, the U.S. had not filed any extradition request against Polanski "for years," even though it knew he had bought a house in Switzerland in 2006 and was a regular visitor there. That gave the director a reasonable expectation that he was not under threat of arrest and deportation from there.
In my opinion, that reasoning is rather bogus... while the U.S. hadn't filed extradition requests "for years", they had made attempts to apprehend him. The fact that they didn't have people tailing Polanski 365 days/year doesn't mean that they don't have an interest in getting him back.
 
Yikes!
Almost everyone of you who posted on this thread quibbled about 'did he?/didn't he?/what if?/etc.
I cannot understand why you all are so gullible that you consider ANY law as equally applicable to all human beings! Is this the first time you have ever heard/read that certain folks (celebrities,government officials) often (but not always) get "special considerations" (rarely,if ever, fully disclosed)?
The refusal by Switzerland to extradite this man does NOT mean that the Swiss government thinks/claims/states that Polanski is innocent of the crime(s) he has been accused of.
You can all speculate about why the US didn't provide the requested information and thereby furnished the Swiss authorities a legality to refuse to extradite this man, but it's just that:SPECULATION!
I doubt that any of us will ever know who/how many persons was/were instrumental in bringing about this result (= refusal to extradite). Chances are "friends in high places" in France,Poland,Switzerland,USA, and other countries came to this arrangement.
As long as Polanski stays in Switzerland,France or any country that does not honour extradition requests/demands from the US, he is not going to go on trial for what he did/is alleged to have done....
Like most of you, I have no doubt that he should long ago have been tried in a court of law in the US.
He wasn't, for whatever reasons, and the 'long arm' of the US Justice system did NOT bring him in front of a US court after he fled to France....you/I should recognize a "fait accompli" and you all ought to simply learn to accept the sorry fact that this man goes free.
Continued nitpicking ( and that's what I consider most of the posts made so far) about 'fine points' or technicalities serves no purpose other than letting off steam/venting frustration.
There ARE walls that you & I & most non-celebrities & folks without "friends in high places" will NEVER be able to scale.
LIVE WITH IT!
(and I do NOT mean that arrogantly or condescendingly, I assure you!)
 
AvalonXQ said:
Apparently you can.
And in the (fortunately, extremely rare) circumstances where judges lie, I'm glad of it.
Click to expand...

There hasn't been any evidence that the judge lied. Polanski never appeared before the judge. Do you have evidence that he did?
 
noch1Narr said:
The refusal by Switzerland to extradite this man does NOT mean that the Swiss government thinks/claims/states that Polanski is innocent of the crime(s) he has been accused of.
Click to expand...
True, but if you look at one of the reasons the Swiss gave, it appears as if they were questioning the length of sentence. So while that doesn't necessarily mean that they thought Polanski was innocent, they seemed to think they were the somehow better judges of morality.

You can all speculate about why the US didn't provide the requested information and thereby furnished the Swiss authorities a legality to refuse to extradite this man, but it's just that:SPECULATION!
Click to expand...
Yup. And its also speculation that there was something "bad" about the U.S. government and their handling of the case. (e.g. implications that if documents were not provided it was because the U.S. was wrong somehow. At least that's how some of the posts have appeared to me.)

Like most of you, I have no doubt that he should long ago have been tried in a court of law in the US.
Click to expand...
Ummm... minor point...

Polanski had already plead guilty. No need for a 'trial'. the only thing missing was the sentencing (and actually serving the sentence).
 
DC said:
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.
Click to expand...
If a person flees a death penalty cae the country usually gets a promise that the bad guy won't be executed. Then the guy gets turned in but Polanski isn't under a death penalty. He needs to do time for what he did.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here is a link to photos of the girl, taken around the time of the incident.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pyylukR2x...Y/s1600-h/samantha+geimer+polansky+rape+6.JPG

ETA - More photos here (slow link).
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
In all likelihood, there's probably several more victims out there. Pedophiles like Polanski never do anything just once.
Click to expand...

But didn't you know? According to Polanski..."But… ***********, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to **** young girls. Juries want to **** young girls. Everyone wants to **** young girls!”.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1168-Crim...t-everyone-wants-to-have-sex-with-young-girls

So why should he be blamed for doing something that everyone wants to do?
[/ sarcasm]

Edited by LashL: 
To properly mask profanity. See Rule 10 re: the auto-censor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Segnosaur said:
True, but if you look at one of the reasons the Swiss gave, it appears as if they were questioning the length of sentence. So while that doesn't necessarily mean that they thought Polanski was innocent, they seemed to think they were the somehow better judges of morality.


Yup. And its also speculation that there was something "bad" about the U.S. government and their handling of the case. (e.g. implications that if documents were not provided it was because the U.S. was wrong somehow. At least that's how some of the posts have appeared to me.)


Ummm... minor point...

Polanski had already plead guilty. No need for a 'trial'. the only thing missing was the sentencing (and actually serving the sentence).
Click to expand...

to provide the documents requested is part of a treaty. i guess we should make exceptions for the USA?
 
DC said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...wants-charges-dismissed-victimised-again.html

i don't know what happened in that night, and i think the case should be dismissed as the victim demands.
Click to expand...


I have done a lot of work with at risk kids and foster kids, and my parents did foster care. I have had many, many kids who have been physically or sexually abused. I also did volunteer work with rape victims in college.

The majority of people I have dealt with did not want to press charges. My foster sister's mother abused her horrifically for years and ultimately tried to kill her and she didn't want to press charges. There are a variety of reasons for this. Fear of trial is the big one. A trial can be a grueling experience, especially when it comes to a sexual assault case. When the are long and drawn out, that makes them even less inclined to go forward, because they have already had to deal with so much. A lot of times it's feelings of guilt, like they somehow deserved it. Other times it's fear of facing the perpetrator. Other times the perpetrator has offered them money in exchange for dropping charges. Sometimes they feel a misplaced sense of loyalty to the perpetrator (especially if it is a loved one- husband, parent, boyfriend, etc).


If we dismissed cases every time the victim wanted to, I can't even begin to think how many more pedophiles, rapists, etc would be let loose.

Is that really what you want, DC? Perpetrators to be able to buy off, intimidate, etc victims? Or for rape/sexual assault/attempted murder/etc to essentially be legal so long as the victim doesn't want a trial?
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
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.
Click to expand...

Althou in either case I would fine US military justice to be an acceptable alternative.
 
DC said:
to provide the documents requested is part of a treaty. i guess we should make exceptions for the USA?
Click to expand...

I read through the sections of the treaty (provided by AvalonXQ) regarding the documentation required for extradition.

Section 9 discusses items such as identity and location of the accused, basic facts of the case, the relevant laws that were broken, some statement of conviction, the arrest warrant, and the sentence.

Section 10 refers to "supplementary documentation", but in my opinion it is very vague, and only states they may request "the submission of necessary additional information".

The argument from the Swiss is that they wanted to see if Polanski had "already served his time". But since he fled before the judge was able to determine the sentence, then it shouldn't be up to the Swiss to judge on how much jail time was expected. (i.e. what the Swiss were supposedly asking for appears to have little or nothing to do with the requirements of Section 9.)
 
Last edited:
Schrodinger's Cat said:
I have done a lot of work with at risk kids and foster kids, and my parents did foster care. I have had many, many kids who have been physically or sexually abused. I also did volunteer work with rape victims in college.

The majority of people I have dealt with did not want to press charges. My foster sister's mother abused her horrifically for years and ultimately tried to kill her and she didn't want to press charges. There are a variety of reasons for this. Fear of trial is the big one. A trial can be a grueling experience, especially when it comes to a sexual assault case. When the are long and drawn out, that makes them even less inclined to go forward, because they have already had to deal with so much. A lot of times it's feelings of guilt, like they somehow deserved it. Other times it's fear of facing the perpetrator. Other times the perpetrator has offered them money in exchange for dropping charges. Sometimes they feel a misplaced sense of loyalty to the perpetrator (especially if it is a loved one- husband, parent, boyfriend, etc).


If we dismissed cases every time the victim wanted to, I can't even begin to think how many more pedophiles, rapists, etc would be let loose.

Is that really what you want, DC? Perpetrators to be able to buy off, intimidate, etc victims? Or for rape/sexual assault/attempted murder/etc to essentially be legal so long as the victim doesn't want a trial?
Click to expand...

she has a family and it is 30 years ago. she has managed to have a relative normal life and i see no benefit to her, on contrary she would have to live true all that again and it would be covered in press all over the globe.

if it just happened, i would not want the case dismissed no matter what the victim wants.

i don't agree with what he did to her or even the way he handled the case (fleeing the country etc).
 
DC said:
she has a family and it is 30 years ago. she has managed to have a relative normal life and i see no benefit to her, on contrary she would have to live true all that again and it would be covered in press all over the globe.
Click to expand...
Ummm... its not just the benefit to her that must be considered. We have to consider the effects of criminals on society as a whole. Polanski's "victims" also include parents who may have to watch their kids more than they would if pedophiles did not exist, and the taxpayer who had to fund the court system and police to try Polanski. Yes, they were not as seriously impacted as his "main" victim, but they must still be considered.

And before you claim something like "Polanski was of no risk to re-offend now", we also have to at least attempt to make sure justice is applied fairly and universally.

if it just happened, i would not want the case dismissed no matter what the victim wants.
Click to expand...
Sooooo.... where do you draw the line, when you start dismissing cases because its what the "victim wants"? After 1 month? 1 year? 10 years?

One thing I do have to wonder... the victim is currently undergoing a lot of unwarranted media attention. Some people are blaming the government for dragging the case on, but isn't it more Polanski's fault? After all, Polanski could have ended all this media circus by returning to the U.S. to face punishment. But his desire to stay in Europe and **** little girls (as Polanski said everyone likes to do) means that the entire situation is drawn out a lot longer than it should have been.
 
Segnosaur said:
Ummm... its not just the benefit to her that must be considered. We have to consider the effects of criminals on society as a whole. Polanski's "victims" also include parents who may have to watch their kids more than they would if pedophiles did not exist, and the taxpayer who had to fund the court system and police to try Polanski. Yes, they were not as seriously impacted as his "main" victim, but they must still be considered.

And before you claim something like "Polanski was of no risk to re-offend now", we also have to at least attempt to make sure justice is applied fairly and universally.


Sooooo.... where do you draw the line, when you start dismissing cases because its what the "victim wants"? After 1 month? 1 year? 10 years?

One thing I do have to wonder... the victim is currently undergoing a lot of unwarranted media attention. Some people are blaming the government for dragging the case on, but isn't it more Polanski's fault? After all, Polanski could have ended all this media circus by returning to the U.S. to face punishment. But his desire to stay in Europe and **** little girls (as Polanski said everyone likes to do) means that the entire situation is drawn out a lot longer than it should have been.
Click to expand...

when this is so important, why was there so many years done nothing?
and why did the US fail to deliver the requested information?

btw **** little girls is also here illegal. why not take a recent case then?
 
DC said:
when this is so important, why was there so many years done nothing?
Click to expand...
Ummm... because, as much as they wanted Polanski back, they probably couldn't afford the manpower to have him tailed 365 days/year just in case he attempts to go to an extradition-friendly country.

They actually did try to retrieve him several times (for example, in 2007 when he visited Israel).

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/movies/29polanski.html
...the district attorney’s office circulated a list of actions and queries by which it had monitored his travels in at least 10 countries, including what appeared to be a near miss, when officials relayed a request for information from Israel about a visit in 2007. “Polanski had left Israel and was not arrested,” by the time the information arrived, said the advisory.

And in addition:

...he has avoided visits to Britain, where extradition would be easier. When in Germany directing his latest film, “The Ghost,” Mr. Polanski occasionally avoided the set, directing through a remote communications setup and leading some members of the cast and crew to believe that he was trying to make apprehension more difficult

So even Polanski realized that he was not "free and clear" of the charges.

and why did the US fail to deliver the requested information?
Click to expand...

I already pointed out, section 9 of the extradition agreement gives a list of required documentation (things like the identity of the accused, the law that was broken, the arrest warrant, the conviction, etc.) The Swiss were asking for documentation regarding whether the length of time served by Polanski was sufficient. That in itself doesn't seem to be relevant to section 9 of the extradition agreement, and it is not the duty of the Swiss courts to determine sentencing.

Of course, there is also this: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...i-is-a-free-man-with-some-key-conditions.html
In the end, the statements by Swiss authorities left more questions than answers. It was unclear if the Swiss courts did not give proper notice to U.S. authorities in asking for documentation or if U.S. prosecutors failed to hand over relevant documents as part of their extradition request.

So, its possible that the fault lies with the Swiss themselves.

At this point we don't know enough to determine who was at fault. Right now, there are 3 possibilities:

- The U.S. falsely withheld documentation. This seems to be the position that many of the "free polanski" group has taken (and, as I stated above, I have problems with that since the documentation asked for doesn't seem to be relevant to what the Swiss courts should deal with)

- The Swiss didn't actually ask for the documentation (as the article I stated above suggests might have happened)

- The U.S. withheld the documentation, but it was justified in doing so
 
All we have at the moment is the Swiss statement, anything else is just speculation based on, as far as I can, see nothing.
 
Schrodinger's Cat said:
.....If we dismissed cases every time the victim wanted to, I can't even begin to think how many more pedophiles, rapists, etc would be let loose.

Is that really what you want, DC? Perpetrators to be able to buy off, intimidate, etc victims? Or for rape/sexual assault/attempted murder/etc to essentially be legal so long as the victim doesn't want a trial?
Click to expand...

Thank you for saying that. I find it hard to believe that anyone not connected to the case would support the idea of letting an alleged rapist off the hook just because his victim did not want a trial. That certainly would be an incentive for those thugs to traumatize their victims much more.

Ranb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom