Looks like Polanski will get away again.

ZirconBlue said:
Words have meanings outside of courtrooms, you know. If we're not arguing a case inside a courtroom, I feel no obligation to speak using strict adherence to legal definitions.

Or, are you prepared to "correct" the misuse of the word "line" in any application that doesn't involve an infinitely long set of points?
Click to expand...

Kevin_Lowe makes a more cogent and compelling rebuttal to this line of thinking than I can, in post #252 upthread. To quote the relevant passages:

Kevin_Lowe said:
You want to call the crime Polanksi was convicted of "statutory rape" rather than "unlawful sex" because that's what similar crimes are sometimes called elsewhere, and then you want to shorten it to "rape" which is a different crime.

This is the sleazy argumentative tactic of equivocation: Using a word which can mean two things and switching which definition you are using around to deceive.
Click to expand...

Kevin_Lowe said:
You can state that an orange is a banana in your book if you like, but it doesn't make it so.

Every jurisdiction I'm aware of has a clear legal distinction between the crime of consensual sex with a minor and the crime of raping a minor, and it punishes raping a minor much more severely. As it should do.

...


You can call someone guilty of manslaughter a killer, just as you can call Polanski a statutory rapist. (Although you do cross the line into error or lying if you call him a rapist without that vital qualification). It's less accurate than calling him guilty of unlawful sex with a minor, but some people do dearly love to spin it as "statutory rape" because they like the less accurate and more emotive term.

It is, however, definitely spin. It's a deliberate attempt to shade language to create a false or misleading impression. I'm not saying you can't spin, I'm just calling you out for doing it.
Click to expand...
 
ARubberChickenWithAPulley said:
You can disagree with gravity too, but that won't make you float.

Polanski's own lawyers requested to have him sentenced in-absentia. Presumably, if they thought that he had already been sentenced, they wouldn't ask for him to be sentenced.
Click to expand...

The plea included the sentence, both parties agreed and Polanski held up his end of the deal. He served his sentence.
 
FWIW here's a long transcript of a Larry King interview with Samantha Geimer (the victim) and also her lawyer. Geimer talks in detail about what happened and the aftermath. I'm not making any arguments one way or the other (at this point), but it's worth a read.

eta: I haven't read every post in this thread, so sorry if this has already been posted. It seems to me there may be some speculating going on about things that are on the record.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ddt
Polanski's lawyers claim they heard the judge wanted hm in prison and subsequently deported.
Click to expand...
ZirconBlue said:
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.
Click to expand...


From this CNN transcript. Larry King and Samantha Geimer's attorney, Lawrence Silver:
KING: Were you shocked what the judge did?

What did the judge do, tell us?

SILVER: Well, what the judge did was frankly outrageous. We had agreed to a plea bargain. It wasn't what the prosecution wanted, it certainly wasn't what Polanski wanted, but it was what we wanted. We were the victim and this is the way in which Samantha would not be in trial. Samantha would be -- her name would not be exposed at the time. And she would be allowed to recover.

And the plea was proposed to the judge, the judge approved it. And then frankly the day before he called us in the chambers and said he was getting a great deal of pressure and a great deal -- he was concerned about criticism of him in the press. And he was going to sentence Polanski rather than to time served, which is what we agreed to, to 50 years. That's a long -- big difference. And...

KING: Told you that.

SILVER: Yes, told us that. And he Told us other things. He directed Mr. Dalton, Polanski's lawyer, to say certain things during court. He directed the prosecutor, Mr. Guncin (ph), to say certain things the next day. Directed me to do things. This is unheard of.

KING: Inviting him to flee?

SILVER: I don't know about that.

KING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 50 years.

SILVER: Well, I don't know about inviting him to flee. But he also said that he might consider reducing it if Polanski would self- deport himself. This a state court judge, he has no jurisdiction over immigration, naturalization matters. So this change of position by the judge excused Polanski. And there was an agreement. An agreement that was a good agreement. It addressed all of the interests of the parties and frankly I still think it ought to be enforce.
Click to expand...
 
If Switzerland wants Polanski, perhaps we should just let them keep him. They can have all our other child molesters, rapists, and other dangerous sexual predators as well. I bet a one-way airline ticket to Switzerland would be cheaper than keeping one of these criminals in jail for the necessary time, then trying to keep track of him after he's released.
 
ARubberChickenWithAPulley said:
So in other words, the Swiss were requesting something absolutely absurd and irrelevant, because they could. That doesn't exactly make me feel great about their actions here. So sure, you can argue the operated within the letter of the law, which apparently means they can simply refuse to extradite anyone for the heck of it, if they so desire.
...snip...
Click to expand...

From all accounts it appears they were asking for documents that were relevant to the issue they were looking into i.e. court proceedings and documents relating to the matter the USA was seeking extradition for.
 
Last edited:
ARubberChickenWithAPulley said:
The Swiss stated why they wanted the document: to verify if the judge had "promised" Polanski an additional 48-day sentence, which would not meet the 6-month requirement of the treaty.

My point is that even if the Swiss had that document, and verified that information, it is completely irrelevent. Polanski was never sentenced to begin with, and what a judge might have sentenced him to, had he not fled, has no bearing on that fact. He can be sentenced to up to 2 years, which more than meets the 6 month requirement.

The Swiss have unilaterally decided that his sentence is less than 6 months, when the entire point of his extradition is so he can be sentenced.
Click to expand...

No they haven't - what they had said is that since the USA would not release relevant documents they cannot with certainty (legal certainty) say if the extradition would be lawful under Swiss law therefore the extradition can't go ahead.
 
ARubberChickenWithAPulley said:
They could have provided information without providing an entire document. In fact, given that the Swiss seem to have knowledge of the content of that document (since they state that the document "should" show that the judge intended to sentence Polanski to 48 extra days), it appears they were provided with information from somewhere. It is also still unclear as to whether the Swiss themselves ever requested the document. A

...snip...
Click to expand...

From the Swiss statement: "...The request for the testimony transcripts made by the FOJ was rejected by the US Justice Department on 13 May 2010..."
 
Bob Blaylock said:
If Switzerland wants Polanski, perhaps we should just let them keep him. They can have all our other child molesters, rapists, and other dangerous sexual predators as well. I bet a one-way airline ticket to Switzerland would be cheaper than keeping one of these criminals in jail for the necessary time, then trying to keep track of him after he's released.
Click to expand...

you just didn't find a more stupid thing to post, ain't it?

He is already not in Switzerland anymore .
 
Darat said:
No they haven't - what they had said is that since the USA would not release relevant documents they cannot with certainty (legal certainty) say if the extradition would be lawful under Swiss law therefore the extradition can't go ahead.
Click to expand...

The document they asked for is not relevant. They stated why they wanted to see that document, and their reasoning makes no sense whatsoever, other than to use as an excuse for not extraditing a convicted criminal. Their reasoning was not directly because they didn't receive the document, it is because they believe that Polanski "already served his sentence," and that the document would show that. Since they couldn't "disprove" that, they released him. As has been noted several times in this thread, this is absolute nonsense, because Polanski was never sentenced. Any argument that Polanski "served his sentence" is moot.

As far as I can tell, you cannot provide any argument as to why the information they claim they need is relevant. The only argument I've seen here is, "Well, they can ask for whatever they want just cause they can."

Moreover, as late as April 30th, they stated publicly that they didn't need to see it. In fact, the judge cites their statemente as one reason he rejected Polanski's lawyers demands to have the documents unsealed. So they state publicly they don't want it, the judge seals it, and then once it is secret, they suddenly demand it be released.
 
Last edited:
qayak said:
The plea included the sentence, both parties agreed and Polanski held up his end of the deal. He served his sentence.
Click to expand...

Nope. You can repeat it all you want, that doesn't make it true.

"Both parties" doesn't include the judge. The judge is not bound by a plea bargain agreed to by the prosecution and the defense. The judge is also not bound by a backroom promise. He is bound by what sentence he gives, in court, and signs. He never did that, hence there was no sentence.

Funny you didn't address my point above: if he already was sentenced, why were his own lawyers requesting him to be sentenced?
 
Vortigern99 said:
Kevin_Lowe makes a more cogent and compelling rebuttal to this line of thinking than I can, in post #252 upthread. To quote the relevant passages:
Click to expand...

I try not to read any of Kevin_Lowe's posts in threads dealing with sexual abuse of children.

I call Polanski a rapist because that's what he is, regardless of what California law has to say on the matter, and regardless of what he has been convicted of. I've seen enough evidence to be convinced that what he actually did is rape. Rape rape not "just" statutory rape.
 
ARubberChickenWithAPulley said:
The document they asked for is not relevant.

...snip....
Click to expand...

Again how can you determine that since the the information is not available. How do you know it doesn't contain something that would make the extradition unlawful under Swiss law?

And both the USA and Swiss authorities seem to think it could be relevant, otherwise why would the USA authorities try to get the documentation for the Swiss?
 
ARubberChickenWithAPulley said:
Not the spirit "of their own law," the spirit of their treaty with the U.S. That is the issue at hand. Polanski has not broken any laws in Switzerland.

Funny you have yet to offer any reasoning why the document was relevant. At best, what you state above is that the Swiss can stonewall any extradition if they so desire by requesting unnecessary documents, and that technically that might comply with the treaty. I hate to think that is the case here (I certainly have nothing against the Swiss, and barring a tax spat here and there, Switzerland and the U.S. generally are on quite good terms), but you don't seem to offer any defense other than, "well, they can do it if they want."



Are you suggesting that the Swiss reserve the right to sentence people who commit crimes and are tried and convicted in other countries in lieu of extradition? I seriously doubt that.
Click to expand...



I do not offer any reasoning on WHY such document is relevant, because I am not an expert in Swiss law (and neither I do think any of you are expert in Swiss law when you say the document is IRRELEVANT ! I can easily stand corrected).

My point is one section certainly seem to make that info relevant 9.4.D in case of sentencing, whether it was relevant to the decision i do not know.

But case in point NEITHER do you, and unless mistaken NEITHER of us is an expert in Swiss law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom