Looks like Polanski will get away again.

[Kevin_Lowe]

See this is what I'm talk about. The entire point of the section you just quoted was (I repeat), SEX + WITH A KID = NO!; yet even though you quoted the whole thing, you chose to zero in on a single word and pretend the rest wasn't even there.

You were stating something which is obvious to every participant in the thread and has never been contested, so I don't know what you were expecting. A parade in your honour, perhaps, or a trophy?

Polanski was found guilty of having sex with a kid. What he did was against the law - EVEN IF he didn't use drugs, EVEN IF the kid had been sexual active previously. The fact that a house has been left unlocked doesn't give you leave to walk in and take whatever you want. Polanski = 40-something adult, victim = 13-year-old kid; there's no state in the US where that's okay even if it's not called statutory rape.

Well done. Two plus two is four! Congratulations on posting a factual claim known only to most of the literate population of the world.

 

[SezMe]

Cruel and unusual punishment.

The exile and loneliness eats at them. They start doing crazy things; corks on their hats, swimming with sharks, throwing bent sticks at themselves. Their speech becomes distorted and unintelligible.

Then you end up with a giant mad house, filled with the degenerate spawn of the lunatics and criminals you originally housed there.

All in all, it's probably better just to humanely drown them, like kittens.

Look, this thread is about Polanski, not Australia. Please stay on topic.

 

[Darat]

I guess, as long as he only gets to **** little French girls and little Swiss girls, and little girls from other parts of Europe, and not **** any more little American girls, he's not really our problem.

He really ought to be held accountable under our laws for the one little American girl that he ****ed, but if the Europeans want to protect him, and let him go free to **** their little girls, then I guess that's their choice.

I think you mean "Swiss" but that aside do you have any evidence that "they" want to protect him?

 

[SezMe]

... but because of the USA's decision they could not be certain and therefore the extradition failed.

I question whether it's fair to use that word. If the records are sealed, then does the USA have any decision to make at all. If the records are sealed, then they are sealed. It seems to me, in that case, there is no decision to be made.

 

[Darat]

I question whether it's fair to use that word. If the records are sealed, then does the USA have any decision to make at all. If the records are sealed, then they are sealed. It seems to me, in that case, there is no decision to be made.

Is there no way in the USA to "unseal" documents?

 

[Aepervius]

I question whether it's fair to use that word. If the records are sealed, then does the USA have any decision to make at all. If the records are sealed, then they are sealed. It seems to me, in that case, there is no decision to be made.

But it isn't in Swiss responsibility that the document are indeed sealed. From the Swiss POV, they require document to be able to extradite, the USA refuse (whatever the reason), then their hand are tied.

Somehow in this thread, i get the feeling that some people would want the Swiss to ignore their requirement, and/or extradite Polanski no matter what.

 

[Segnosaur]

Is there no way in the USA to "unseal" documents?

This had been discussed by other posters...

Once again, the only reason that the document was 'sealed' was that they wanted information on record should Polanski be returned to the U.S. but the prosecutor was unavailable (e.g. dead, and not a zombie). They can be unsealed by Polanski actually returning to face sentencing in person. (If the prosecutor is still alive at the time, then the documents do not need to be unsealed, since he can give the same testimony that was in the documents.)

I do think there's a good point in keeping them sealed. If there happens to be something particularly damaging to Polanski (that might result in more jail time), the last thing you want to do is unseal them when he's in a foreign country and could possibly run. Better to have them unsealed when he's in U.S. custody... if the documents harm Polanski, he can't run. If the documents help Polanski (e.g. show some sort of real misconduct) then it can be dealt with in the courts and he might go free right away.

 

[Segnosaur]

But it isn't in Swiss responsibility that the document are indeed sealed. From the Swiss POV, they require document to be able to extradite, the USA refuse (whatever the reason), then their hand are tied.

Somehow in this thread, i get the feeling that some people would want the Swiss to ignore their requirement, and/or extradite Polanski no matter what.

But as its been said before:

- The list of documents required for extradition doesn't include anything regarding length of sentence/time served/etc. If you assume it does, then you're reading a heck of a lot into the extradition treaty that just doesn't seem to be there.

- There are reports that the swiss themselves claimed that they didn't need the documents. This was reported by some pretty reputable news organizations.

 

[DC]

But it isn't in Swiss responsibility that the document are indeed sealed. From the Swiss POV, they require document to be able to extradite, the USA refuse (whatever the reason), then their hand are tied.

Somehow in this thread, i get the feeling that some people would want the Swiss to ignore their requirement, and/or extradite Polanski no matter what.

those pesky swiss have a tendency to not do what they are told to do, i mean really, thats annoying and not acceptable.

 

[DC]

This had been discussed by other posters...

Once again, the only reason that the document was 'sealed' was that they wanted information on record should Polanski be returned to the U.S. but the prosecutor was unavailable (e.g. dead, and not a zombie). They can be unsealed by Polanski actually returning to face sentencing in person. (If the prosecutor is still alive at the time, then the documents do not need to be unsealed, since he can give the same testimony that was in the documents.)

I do think there's a good point in keeping them sealed. If there happens to be something particularly damaging to Polanski (that might result in more jail time), the last thing you want to do is unseal them when he's in a foreign country and could possibly run. Better to have them unsealed when he's in U.S. custody... if the documents harm Polanski, he can't run. If the documents help Polanski (e.g. show some sort of real misconduct) then it can be dealt with in the courts and he might go free right away.

a bug in the system. polanski need to return to the US to unseal the documents, but in order to get him into the USA those dosuments must be unsealed.

 

[Darat]

This had been discussed by other posters...

Once again, the only reason that the document was 'sealed' was that they wanted information on record should Polanski be returned to the U.S. but the prosecutor was unavailable (e.g. dead, and not a zombie). They can be unsealed by Polanski actually returning to face sentencing in person. (If the prosecutor is still alive at the time, then the documents do not need to be unsealed, since he can give the same testimony that was in the documents.)

...snip...

So if the USA wanted to extradite him and knew that the Swiss required sight of whatever is in the sealed documents (which I assume we cannot know since they are sealed?) the USA could have provided them with the documents. That the USA choose/decided not to do is not the fault of the Swiss authorities, all the evidence so far is that this extradition failed because the USA dropped the ball.

 

[Darat]

But as its been said before:

- The list of documents required for extradition doesn't include anything regarding length of sentence/time served/etc. If you assume it does, then you're reading a heck of a lot into the extradition treaty that just doesn't seem to be there.

- There are reports that the swiss themselves claimed that they didn't need the documents. This was reported by some pretty reputable news organizations.

How do you know what is in the sealed documents?

 

[Segnosaur]

I guess, as long as he only gets to **** little French girls and little Swiss girls, and little girls from other parts of Europe, and not **** any more little American girls, he's not really our problem.

so instead of going with the facts you decided to make up crap ?

Classy guy, aren't you.

First of all, keep in mind that Polanski himself made a statement about how "everyone loves to **** little girls". (I put a link in a post earlier in the thread). So he doesn't seem to be any more or less 'classy' than Polanski is.

Secondly, I really do have to question just why so many european politicians and members of the artistic community are bending over backwards to support Polanski. He did something that was incredibly wrong, and he fled justice. If people in europe are going to go out on a limb and consider him a 'national treasure' and condemn the U.S. for trying to get him sentenced, then I think Europe deserves a little scorn.

 

[Darat]

First of all, keep in mind that Polanski himself made a statement about how "everyone loves to **** little girls". (I put a link in a post earlier in the thread). So he doesn't seem to be any more or less 'classy' than Polanski is.

Secondly, I really do have to question just why so many european politicians and members of the artistic community are bending over backwards to support Polanski. He did something that was incredibly wrong, and he fled justice. If people in europe are going to go out on a limb and consider him a 'national treasure' and condemn the U.S. for trying to get him sentenced, then I think Europe deserves a little scorn.

Hmmm - so 45 plus nations have officially stated he is a "national treasure"? have they?

 

[Segnosaur]

The list of documents required for extradition doesn't include anything regarding length of sentence/time served/etc. If you assume it does, then you're reading a heck of a lot into the extradition treaty that just doesn't seem to be there.

- There are reports that the swiss themselves claimed that they didn't need the documents. This was reported by some pretty reputable news organizations.

How do you know what is in the sealed documents?

I don't know what's in the documents, but based on the statement made by Swiss authorities, it appears that they had assumed it contained details about just how much time the judge was planning on giving him for his sentence. However, those are details that should be dealt with in an American court.

Edited to add: I also notice you ignored the part about how at one point the Swiss themselves claimed they didn't really need the documents.

 

[Segnosaur]

a bug in the system. polanski need to return to the US to unseal the documents, but in order to get him into the USA those dosuments must be unsealed.

Nope, all that was needed was for the Swiss authorities to respect the letter and spirit of an extradition law, which more or less states "We trust people returned to your country will be given a fair trial and we will not second-guess them".

Guess that's a bit much to ask.

 

[DC]

First of all, keep in mind that Polanski himself made a statement about how "everyone loves to **** little girls". (I put a link in a post earlier in the thread). So he doesn't seem to be any more or less 'classy' than Polanski is.

Secondly, I really do have to question just why so many european politicians and members of the artistic community are bending over backwards to support Polanski. He did something that was incredibly wrong, and he fled justice. If people in europe are going to go out on a limb and consider him a 'national treasure' and condemn the U.S. for trying to get him sentenced, then I think Europe deserves a little scorn.

Like our Justice Smurf told the press. the decision had nothing at all to do with Polanski's guilt or innocence. It is soley about the extradition. the USA failed to deliver the requested documents, thus the extradition failed. that would have happened to every other country that would fail to deliver the needed paperwork. no matter who is the person to extradite.

I dont agree with what he has done, i even find the 90 day punishment to be laughable low. But that has nothing to do with what happened with the extradition request.

Eveline Widmer.Schlumpf , our justice "minister" is a mother of 3 kids herself. do you honestly belive she agree with him being protected? i highly doubt that.

 

[DC]

Nope, all that was needed was for the Swiss authorities to respect the letter and spirit of an extradition law, which more or less states "We trust people returned to your country will be given a fair trial and we will not second-guess them".

Guess that's a bit much to ask.

no that was not all that was needed for the swiss authorities.
such things are mostly alot lot more complicated than described in the press.

and to me it seems what the swiss have requested was well within the bounderies of the treathy.

 

[Darat]

I don't know what's in the documents, but based on the statement made by Swiss authorities, it appears that they had assumed it contained details about just how much time the judge was planning on giving him for his sentence. However, those are details that should be dealt with in an American court.

...snip...

So you are in the same position as the Swiss authorities - you do not know if the sealed documents contain information that would mean the extradition would not be lawful.

Edited to add: I also notice you ignored the part about how at one point the Swiss themselves claimed they didn't really need the documents.

Only because I don't find it to be of great relevance, things change as things are investigated and looked into it.

 

[Segnosaur]

Not sure what you mean by the claim was not 'sourced' in the linked article. The article appearing on the New York times site was linked to a Yahoo/Associated Press article that is no longer valid, but the New York Times is generally seen as a rather respectable news source....The same information is repeated on other sites...Do you think all of those sources are wrong when they make statements suggesting the Swiss didn't actually want the documentation?

i didn't assume they lied, i was just confused by the link that went into nothing,

Its a dead link... it happens on the internet.

and i didn't find his statement in german.

Ummm... so? Do you only believe things that are written in German?

We've got a pretty reasonable source that suggests that at one point the Swiss stated "The documents aren't needed". Are you still dismissing that statement? If so, why? And if you're saying that it likely was an accurate statement from the Swiss themselves, don't you think that calls into question their dismissal of the extradition over documents that they didn't think were important?

the request was related to the validity of the extradition request.

Once again, since you seem to not understand this...

Details of sentencing are not part of the extradition treaty. The fact that there were issues regarding sentence length were not the responsibility of the Swiss legal system to figure out.

maybe its not imaginable to you, but it could be that the US authorities screwed it up.

Yes, I've already admitted that that is a possibility the Americans messed up in an earlier post.

But, I think the most likely scenario is that the Swiss are the ones to blame, because:

A: I'm not willing to ignore the statements made by Swiss authorities themselves several months ago that "the documents aren't important"
B: The Swiss had other false/misleading information in their statement regarding U.S. attempts to apprehend Polanski in previous years
C: The idea that the Swiss were to determine whether he "served his time already" is not something that should be covered under an extradition treaty.

Even without the 3rd point above, the first 2 (A and B) should be enough to cast doubt on the Swiss version of events.