Looks like Polanski will get away again.

[Aepervius]

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

I can imagine a few point :
* stick to the letter of the law (the most likely IMHO), and keep sealed document sealed no matter what
* the wording is so that it seem the judge REALLY did pretend it would be the whole sentencing, or is really ambiguous. Thus the USA justice department preferring keeping the ambiguity sealed until they really get Polanski in a cell
* protecting somebody covered by the court doc (least probable, unless it cover somebody else than Geimer, another unnamed victim).
* maybe other possibility I am overseeing.

 

[Darat]

I can imagine a few point :
* stick to the letter of the law (the most likely IMHO), and keep sealed document sealed no matter what

USA folk in this thread have said such documents can be unsealed so that one doesn't apply.

* the wording is so that it seem the judge REALLY did pretend it would be the whole sentencing, or is really ambiguous. Thus the USA justice department preferring keeping the ambiguity sealed until they really get Polanski in a cell

I suppose that could be the case, but for that to be the case it seems to rely on one) the USA side know what was in the sealed documents and two) they knew if what was in the sealed documents came to light that their extradition would fail. That requires us to accept that they were trying to quite deliberately fool the Swiss authorities, that to me seems a tad too CT!

* protecting somebody covered by the court doc (least probable, unless it cover somebody else than Geimer, another unnamed victim).
* maybe other possibility I am overseeing.

Hadn't thought about protecting another victim or witness, however I would have thought with something like that the USA could have either explained it or even provided the documents but with parts redacted.

 

[Aepervius]

Well you are right. Reading your comment I am not so sure it makes any sense whatsoever that they keep the document sealed...

 

[Beerina]

Which one? He's raped at least two that we are aware of.

In all likelihood, there's probably several more victims out there. Pedophiles like Polanski never do anything just once.

That's what's especially bad about this case. It isn't some guy having consenting sex with a 13 year old, i.e. statutory rape -- he plied her with Quaaludes or something.

 

[qayak]

That's what's especially bad about this case. It isn't some guy having consenting sex with a 13 year old, i.e. statutory rape -- he plied her with Quaaludes or something.

He served his time and settled a civil suit with the victim.

Was justice served? The victim seems to think so.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I'm pretty sure that it does matter if the judge changes his mind prior to the formal sentencing, and that it is well within his prerogative to do so.

And if Polanski thought the sentence was unfair, he had legal recourse. It's called an appeal.

Just quoting this to agree with it.

Polanski's lawyers claim they heard the judge wanted hm in prison and subsequently deported.

It's interesting to me how what "Polanski's lawyers claim they heard" has been widely taken as fact across internet discussions of this topic.

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?

Personally, at the very least, I think all developed western democracies should extradite anyone that has been tried and found guilty in any other developed western democracy. (People with outstanding arrest warrants in those countries should typically be extradited as well.) There are entirely too many hoops to jump through for extradition, and too many loopholes available to those attempting to flee justice in these treaties.

And, yes, if the situation were reversed -- if Polanksi were a US citizen that had committed a crime and been found guilty in another country -- I would support his extradition to said country.

 

[ZirconBlue]

He served his time

No he hasn't. He was never even sentenced.

and settled a civil suit with the victim.

Irrelevant.

Was justice served

No.

The victim seems to think so.

Irrelevant.

 

[Cleon]

We can mince words if we want, but if you drug a girl/woman and force yourself on her after she has said "no", it's rape.

This. Legal technicalities or no legal technicalities, what Polanski committed was unquestionably rape by any civilized definition of the word. Christ, even your average frat boy knows that if you drug a girl and have sex with her while she says "no," it's rape. The fact that the victim was 13 at the time just makes it that much more outrageous that he's gotten away with it.

 

[DC]

Just quoting this to agree with it.



It's interesting to me how what "Polanski's lawyers claim they heard" has been widely taken as fact across internet discussions of this topic.



Personally, at the very least, I think all developed western democracies should extradite anyone that has been tried and found guilty in any other developed western democracy. (People with outstanding arrest warrants in those countries should typically be extradited as well.) There are entirely too many hoops to jump through for extradition, and too many loopholes available to those attempting to flee justice in these treaties.

And, yes, if the situation were reversed -- if Polanksi were a US citizen that had committed a crime and been found guilty in another country -- I would support his extradition to said country.

im a bit confused to whom that all applies, not the USA i guess as many US Americans often point out how they are not a democracy.

Developed? what does that mean? countries with National health care systems implemented?

 

[ZirconBlue]

im a bit confused to whom that all applies, not the USA i guess as many US Americans often point out how they are not a democracy.

Developed? what does that mean? countries with National health care systems implemented?

Developed country^WP

I'd include at least the top 26 countries on the HDI list, and wouldn't get too bent outta shape if you wanted to include all 38 on that list.

 

[AvalonXQ]

im a bit confused to whom that all applies, not the USA i guess as many US Americans often point out how they are not a democracy.

Eh, they're wrong. Americans elect their government; that's a kind of democracy, and the same kind that most of the rest of the democracies in the world have.

 

[DC]

Developed country^WP

I'd include at least the top 26 countries on the HDI list, and wouldn't get too bent outta shape if you wanted to include all 38 on that list.

so you have less problems with Hong Kong compared to Portugal?

 

[Darat]

This. Legal technicalities or no legal technicalities, what Polanski committed was unquestionably rape by any civilized definition of the word. Christ, even your average frat boy knows that if you drug a girl and have sex with her while she says "no," it's rape. The fact that the victim was 13 at the time just makes it that much more outrageous that he's gotten away with it.

(Let me just clear this up before I make my actual comment to try and prevent me getting jumped on - my personal view is that what he did was very wrong and I would like to see him serve an appropriate sentence for his crime, with that out of the way...)

That might be the view today but was it the view when he committed his crime? It often comes as a surprise to folk in my country when I tell them it was only in the early 1990s that a husband could be convicted for raping his wife, before then the law did not hold that a man could rape his wife as it was held that since they were married she had consented to sex with him. Other examples spring to mind, I remember reading an account of a rape trial in this country from a few decades back in which the court decided that a woman who it was admitted had been forced to have sex with a man was not raped because she had agreed to go to a "lovers lane" with the man and to paraphrase, she knew what was going to happen and it was too late to change her mind.

How we view sexual assaults, rape and so on seems to be an area that has changed very rapidly, and what we consider abhorrent today may not have been viewed that way in very recent history.

(And to finish - my comments above are not excusing what he did in any way, merely making a point that I find quite interesting.)

 

[Cleon]

im a bit confused to whom that all applies, not the USA i guess as many US Americans often point out how they are not a democracy.

Yeah, that's a conservative/libertarian meme, the point of which is to assert that Democrats aren't about what the country's founders were about (because they founded a Republic, not a Democracy, you see).

(I admit that the above is an oversimplification, but that's generally the context in which I see the argument expressed.)

The argument wrong, of course; a republic is a form of democratic government. It's not the only form; various nations have a king or queen and still maintain a more-or-less democratic system of government.

 

[DC]

Eh, they're wrong. Americans elect their government; that's a kind of democracy, and the same kind that most of the rest of the democracies in the world have.

by our standard of democracy, thats not real democracy.

but my actual point is, that is not a way to regulate that. no clear definitions etc.

treatys are a better way, and have a list of countries you would not extradite to because of Human rights violations like say Iran.

 

[DC]

Yeah, that's a conservative/libertarian meme, the point of which is to assert that Democrats aren't about what the country's founders were about (because they founded a Republic, not a Democracy, you see).

(I admit that the above is an oversimplification, but that's generally the context in which I see the argument expressed.)

The argument wrong, of course; a republic is a form of democratic government. It's not the only form; various nations have a king or queen and still maintain a more-or-less democratic system of government.

yes i know i just wanted to point out how that idea to conclude the good countries form the bad countries by those standards does not work.

and in my book, the USA is normally a country we should extradite to, perhaps with some exceptions when there is danger of death penalty, on the other hand, actually its not really our business what you do with your convicted criminals. But can understand if some don't want that.

 

[drkitten]

- 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.

That's not an assumption that you can EVER make in dealing with an extradition case. The whole reason for extradition proceedings is precisely to second-guess the foreign judges (and foreign legal system generally) in the specific case at hand.

That's like assuming that the judge will find the defendant guilty without your bothering to provide that pesky "evidence" stuff.

Your unsupported word as a prosecutor should be enough, right?

 

[drkitten]

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

No. The USA is required either to provide it, to explain to the satisfaction of the Swiss why something shouldn't be necessary, or risk having the extradition case rejected.

They obviously chose the thirt.

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.

They did. The US refused to provide it.

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.

... as is their perogative. The Swiss could ask for Bill Gates' tax return and the secret formula to Coca-Cola as well. If the Americans refuse to comply,... well, the perp may well walk.

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.

Article 10. If the "Requested State" feels that the information provided is insufficient, they can request additional information. Nothing in article 10 limits such requests to what the requesting state considers reasonable.

 

[ZirconBlue]

so you have less problems with Hong Kong compared to Portugal?

No. I'd probably lean in the opposite direction. I was just looking for a convenient list to answer your question. I'd be happy with the 30 "Quality-of-life survey" countries listed farther down in that Wiki link, as well.

 

[DC]

No. I'd probably lean in the opposite direction. I was just looking for a convenient list to answer your question. I'd be happy with the 30 "Quality-of-life survey" countries listed farther down in that Wiki link, as well.

i see already criminals getting free because we cant agree what list it is now.
i would prefer a list that is about the justice system and government type or human rights record rather than quality of life.