Looks like Polanski will get away again.

[Darat]

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.

It is for countries that have established legal system that follow due process, such as the USA and Switzerland.

 

[DC]

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

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?


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.



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.

B: your evidence?

C: should or is?

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

Actually it wold still be very lawful, because it is up to the American courts to decide sentencing, not the Swiss.

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.

Actually it should be very relevant. The statement by the Swiss authorities (that the documents weren't needed) came months after Polanski was picked up in Switzerland. That should have been more than enough for them to determine what was needed in the case.

 

[DC]

for what countries should we make exceptions and not follow the procedere in cases of extradition? Only the USA? or are there also other countries on the list what should be blindely trusted rather than demanding evidence?

 

[Darat]

Actually it wold still be very lawful, because it is up to the American courts to decide sentencing, not the Swiss.

And it may well have been that if the USA had decided to hand over the documentation the Swiss asked for that the Swiss would have decided that the extradition was legal. It's a pity the USA decided not to cooperate resulting in this criminal again escaping his due trial and punishment.

Actually it should be very relevant. The statement by the Swiss authorities (that the documents weren't needed) came months after Polanski was picked up in Switzerland. That should have been more than enough for them to determine what was needed in the case.

Obviously it wasn't.

 

[DC]

im pretty sure the Allgerian government was also of the oppinion that its not up to swiss authorities to decide if one is guilty or not, but still in that case there was no outcry how we dare to question the Algerian government.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

B: your evidence?

The swiss claimed that Polanski travelled freely and suggested that because of that, the U.S. lost at least some authority to pursue him. It is true that Polanski did have a house in Switzerland; however, the U.S. had made attempts to apprehend them.

C: should or is?

Well, obviously I think that an extradition treaty should not involve the details of sentencing. For some reason, the Swiss seem to think they are better at determining sentences than the U.S. Not something I think should be part of an extradition treaty.

 

[DC]

The swiss claimed that Polanski travelled freely and suggested that because of that, the U.S. lost at least some authority to pursue him. It is true that Polanski did have a house in Switzerland; however, the U.S. had made attempts to apprehend them.

those attempts were in conection to switzerland? did they demand to have him extradited before already?

Well, obviously I think that an extradition treaty should not involve the details of sentencing. For some reason, the Swiss seem to think they are better at determining sentences than the U.S. Not something I think should be part of an extradition treaty.

you think. in what cases? and yes in alot cases we do believe we are better at determining sentences than other countries. like alot lot other countries do, including the USA.

but that isnt the case here. as i understand it, in order to be on the legal side, the swiss authorities need a confirmation that there is still open jail time, if there is not, it would not be lagal to extradite him. the USA failed to provide what the Swiss authorities demanded. so it was not legal for the swiss authorities to extradite him. i guess we should just ignore that and say, oh well its the USA, they can be trusted blindely.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

And it may well have been that if the USA had decided to hand over the documentation the Swiss asked for that the Swiss would have decided that the extradition was legal. It's a pity the USA decided not to cooperate resulting in this criminal again escaping his due trial and punishment.

So the Swiss can ask for anything and everything and the USA is required to provide it? I'm pretty sure that is not in the treaty anywhere. If the Swiss had some information they thought was missing, they could have asked for that information. There doesn't seem to be any reason whatsoever to demand the entire transcript of testimony, unless they want to retry the entire case themselves.

Here is what the Swiss said about the documents:

The testimony “should prove” that Polanski actually served his sentence while undergoing a court-ordered diagnostic study after charges were filed, the Swiss Justice Ministry said.

“If this were the case, Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation,” the ministry said.

So what the Swiss wanted from the document was the ability to guess what Polanski might have been sentenced to had he not fled. I'd love to see which part of the treaty allows them to do that.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

but that isnt the case here. as i understand it, in order to be on the legal side, the swiss authorities need a confirmation that there is still open jail time, if there is not, it would not be lagal to extradite him. the USA failed to provide what the Swiss authorities demanded. so it was not legal for the swiss authorities to extradite him. i guess we should just ignore that and say, oh well its the USA, they can be trusted blindely.

And there is no way of confirming whether or not there is "still open jail time" until he is sentenced -- which is the entire point of extraditing him. There is nothing in any document that can tell them what the sentence might be. Testimony on what a judge 30 years ago might have sentenced him to is completely irrelevent, since that judge is not alive today, and would not be the one sentencing him today.

By your logic, no criminal who flees before sentencing could ever be extradited, since to prove that he has "open jail time," they would have to sentence the criminal, and to sentence the criminal, they need to extradite him.

 

[Darat]

So the Swiss can ask for anything and everything and the USA is required to provide it?

Where do get that from, I've never said anything at all like that, all my comments have been in regards to the extradition.

I'm pretty sure that is not in the treaty anywhere. If the Swiss had some information they thought was missing, they could have asked for that information. There doesn't seem to be any reason whatsoever to demand the entire transcript of testimony, unless they want to retry the entire case themselves.

They did, and the USA didn't want to give them it.

 

[DC]

So the Swiss can ask for anything and everything and the USA is required to provide it? I'm pretty sure that is not in the treaty anywhere. If the Swiss had some information they thought was missing, they could have asked for that information. There doesn't seem to be any reason whatsoever to demand the entire transcript of testimony, unless they want to retry the entire case themselves.

there doesn't seem to be any reason to not deliver the requested information.

 

[Darat]

And there is no way of confirming whether or not there is "still open jail time" until he is sentenced -- which is the entire point of extraditing him. There is nothing in any document that can tell them what the sentence might be. Testimony on what a judge 30 years ago might have sentenced him to is completely irrelevent, since that judge is not alive today, and would not be the one sentencing him today.

By your logic, no criminal who flees before sentencing could ever be extradited, since to prove that he has "open jail time," they would have to sentence the criminal, and to sentence the criminal, they need to extradite him.

Do you know what is in the sealed documents? I suspect you don't, and neither do the Swiss which is why they could not be certain that the extradition would be lawful.

 

[DC]

And there is no way of confirming whether or not there is "still open jail time" until he is sentenced -- which is the entire point of extraditing him. There is nothing in any document that can tell them what the sentence might be. Testimony on what a judge 30 years ago might have sentenced him to is completely irrelevent, since that judge is not alive today, and would not be the one sentencing him today.

By your logic, no criminal who flees before sentencing could ever be extradited, since to prove that he has "open jail time," they would have to sentence the criminal, and to sentence the criminal, they need to extradite him.

sentencing him in absentia.

 

[Aepervius]

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.

That is because you got it BACKWARD. You could , you know, read the poster of those pesky European which condemn the abusing act he did, and find that "respect of the process" is more important than appeasing the outraged feeling of some.

 

[Aepervius]

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

When the country which is supposed to have officially written those statement, does not have them available in their own language, it is, shall i say, a bit suspect.

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?

Source can be cited out of context. ETA: they can be mistranslated from german too. Also a speaker for the government is *NOT* the same as having the judge revising the case giving his opinion, even if it was the same person, as they may change their opinion after having reading precedent case and case of law. You realize that ?

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.

read 9.4.d again "a certified copy of the remainder to be served". ETA 9.5 requrie 9.4 to be provided.
And 10 say additional document can be requested if they think it necessary because it does not contain enough info.

From 9.4.d and from 10 they requested a document to clarify the remainder of the sentence. That was refused.

Are we reading the same treaty ?

 

[Aepervius]

So what the Swiss wanted from the document was the ability to guess what Polanski might have been sentenced to had he not fled. I'd love to see which part of the treaty allows them to do that.

9.4.d allow them to know what would be the remainder of the sentence. And 9.5 require 9.4 to be provided in case of in absentia sentence.

 

[DC]

When the country which is supposed to have officially written those statement, does not have them available in their own language, it is, shall i say, a bit suspect.



Source can be cited out of context. ETA: they can be mistranslated from german too. Also a speaker for the government is *NOT* the same as having the judge revising the case giving his opinion, even if it was the same person, as they may change their opinion after having reading precedent case and case of law. You realize that ?



read 9.4.d again "a certified copy of the remainder to be served".
And 10 say additional document can be requested if they think it necessary because it does not contain enough info.

From 9.4.d and from 10 they requested a document to clarify the remainder of the sentence. That was refused.

Are we reading the same treaty ?

thats how i understood 9.4 also. but wasn't sure if it was my english yet again letting me down.

 

[Aepervius]

The problem is I think, he was not sentenced, he was not pronunced guilty , in absentia. 9.3 should then apply, but it is made unclear due to the guilty plea and other information. Therefore the swiss seem to have gone with 9.4.d.

On 12 July 2010, the Swiss authorities announced that they would not extradite Polanski to the U.S. in part due to a fault in the American request for extradition. Polanski was no longer subject to house arrest, or any monitoring by Swiss authorities. In a press conference held by Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, she stated that Polanski's extradition to the U.S. was rejected, in part, because U.S. officials failed to produce certain documents, specifically "confidential testimony from a January 2010 hearing on Mr. Polanski’s original sentencing agreement." According to Swiss officials, the records were required to determine if Polanski's 42-day court-ordered psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison constituted Polanski's whole sentence according to the now-deceased Judge Rittenband. Reasoning that if this was the correct understanding, then "Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation

And that is where all hell broke lose, because the USA refused to unseal the document showing that (or denying that).

 

[Darat]

And I really do struggle to understand why the USA did not make the documents available.