Looks like Polanski will get away again.

[Lallante]

No, it's a "favor." Anything that involves the cooperation of another nation-state is a favor on its part.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that "bilateral treaties" are actually binding. The Swiss could simply ignore the treaty at any point if they chose. The US would ultimately have two choices in that case -- accept the Swiss decision, or go to war.

Allegations of judicial misconduct on this scale are also practically unheard of. Unusual situations demand unusual responses.

... which is why article 10 was put into the treaty in the first place. The diplomats who negotiated the original treaty expected that unusual circumstances would arise and provided a manner to handle them. The Americans dropped the ball in handling this particular set of circumstances.

Learn some public international law. You have no idea what you are talking about. Treaties can be binding and there are MANY other options than ignore or war (or having a treaty would be meaningless).

Learn some criminal and sentancing law. You have no idea what you are talking about. There hasn't been any judicial misconduct.

 

[DC]

This has absolutely no legal impact on the sentance itself and is utterly irrelevent to the Swiss's decision on extradition.

yes it has. if there is no jail time to do, its not legal to extradite someone.

 

[DC]

Learn some public international law. You have no idea what you are talking about. Treaties can be binding and there are MANY other options than ignore or war (or having a treaty would be meaningless).

Learn some criminal and sentancing law. You have no idea what you are talking about. There hasn't been any judicial misconduct.

this post shows that you have no clue, you did not read the related treaty nor the swiss laws and constitution.

 

[Lallante]

I see it that way.

An US Court made the decision that the secrecy of the sealed document is more important than the extradiction of Polanski.

Case closed for the Swiss.

P.S.: I am not well educated on Swiss law, but in Germany for example, deals made in front of the judge are binding. The judge later might deliver a lighter sentence, but not a heavier one than agreed. Link in German

The Swiss had absolutely no need to see the document in question as it was irrelevent to the tests for extradition. The US knew that if they passed it over, it would be used to second guess the US justice system (not to mention to speculate wildly on something that hadnt even happened - namely a further prison sentance for polanski)

PS: That would be the case only if the deal were made formally with the sitting judge. WHICH IT WAS NOT. This is true in the US, Germany and Switzerland, not to mention nearly every other western country. Stuff the judge says informally and when not sitting cannot and does not bind him.

 

[drkitten]

Oh please, there is literally no evidence or even claim that the Judge made a formal offer of no further imprisonment or any other form of legally binding agreement. Please feel free to cite evidence if this is not correct.

What you are essentially, and ridiculously, claiming is that Polanski has served his sentance because the Judge made a statement PRIOR to sentancing, that he might not have a further prison sentance.

What's ridiculous about that claim?

Seriously, you must be trolling or have absolutely no understanding of justice and the rule of law if you think that arguement flies. The judge is 100% free to change or decide the sentance up until the point of sentancing. If this weren't the case, the concept of sentancing would be a farce.

In other words, the judge is free to welsh on an agreement, and US law supports this.

This is supposed to be fair or just?

You are deliberately obfuscating by referring to an "agreement" relating to sentancing. This has absolutely no legal impact on the sentance itself and is utterly irrelevent to the Swiss's decision on extradition.

Not at all. It directly impacts the question of whether the sentence that Polanski is likely to receive is fair, which is one of the primary questions involved in any extradition case.

By going on and on about the so-called "agreement" you demonstrate a basic lack of understanding of criminal law and sentancing. There was nothing that bound the judge to sentance in a particular manner. There is no binding plea-bargain on sentancing!

... which in this case, is a flaw in US law that may render the entire case unjust. The US failed to address this flaw, and therefore extradition was refused.

All these arguements could equally apply to a murderer - fearing the death sentance despite his guilty plea (which in almost all cases would be commuted to life imprisonment), he flees. By your logic no country should extradite him and he should be able to live the rest of his life in luxury in a foreign country.

And, in fact, those arguments do apply to murderers in much of Europe. Neither France, the UK, nor Germany will extradite someone who may face the death penalty. I think this is true for most European states. For that matter, neither Mexico nor Canada will, either. If the US wants him, those countries will typically make it clear that if the US wants the extradition to go through, it will have to take the death sentence off the table.

Usually the US is willing to cooperate. In this case, the US is unwilling to cooperate enough to allow the extradition treaty to operate. The US has chosen not to extradite Polansky by refusing to release the necessary documents.

 

[drkitten]

The Swiss had absolutely no need to see the document in question as it was irrelevent to the tests for extradition.

What do you think "the tests for extradition" are?

 

[volatile]

Great thread. Carry on.

 

[drkitten]

Learn some public international law. You have no idea what you are talking about. Treaties can be binding and there are MANY other options than ignore or war (or having a treaty would be meaningless).

No, you learn some international law. Treaties are only binding to the degree that a contracting state chooses to abide by them.

Learn some criminal and sentancing law.

I have. But it's not especially relevant in this instance, because US law has little bearing on whether or not a particular defendant will be extradited -- the only bearing is whether the law permits sufficient injustice to render the outcome unacceptable to the party of whom extradition is requested.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Lallante]

yes it has. if there is no jail time to do, its not legal to extradite someone.

Sentancing hasnt occured so it is utterly nonsensical to talk about whether there is jail time to do or not.

 

[Aepervius]

All you apologists should ask yourself if you would be going to the same lengths to justify a very strained interpretation of extraditions law were the subject of it NOT a famous and talented film director.

If the anal-rapist pedophile was a black labourer with a previous assault conviction for example.

Personally I hope someone takes this into their own hands. I wont go so far as to condone vigilante justice, but some 'private rendition' to face US justice would be 100% justifiable in my opinion.

Where the heck do you see an apologist here ? I can see maybe 1 or two post from some poster about geimer pardoning him.

The majority of us consider him an ******** and would not care less, but want a RESPECT of the rule of law of the country.

the whole discussion was majorly about that, and no apologist or whatever.

Your post sound more like an attack "I don't have an argument agaisnt the poster so i will just smear them and call them apologist".

 

[DC]

Sentancing hasnt occured so it is utterly nonsensical to talk about whether there is jail time to do or not.

that may ve so in the US.

 

[drkitten]

that may ve so in the US.

I believe it IS so in the US.

.... which is an aspect of the American legal system that many people in this forum (and indeed, around the world) are challenging as potentially unjust and unfair.

Just because the Americans do it doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean that the Swiss (or any other nation-state) needs to support them in doing it.

 

[Aepervius]

Usually the US is willing to cooperate. In this case, the US is unwilling to cooperate enough to allow the extradition treaty to operate. The US has chosen not to extradite Polansky by refusing to release the necessary documents.

Example . the Einhorn killer mentioned earlier. Another example : that terrorist guy. IIRC in both case extradition was a no-go until death sentence was off the table. That seem to happen routinely.

 

[Darat]

Polanski skipping bail. Switzerland and France harbouring him. People heaping accolades on him. Rape. Take your pick.

Ah right so it wasn't about people in this thread who have been discussing this matter. That's what confused me, I thought you were referring to this thread.

 

[Aepervius]

Sentancing hasnt occured so it is utterly nonsensical to talk about whether there is jail time to do or not.

Please normally I am not a grammar and spelling nazi, but would you call it sentencing and not "sentancing" ? And would you please read point 9.4.D of the treaty ? That would allow you to see that potential remaining Jail Time *IS* an actual part of the information required in the frigging treaty. ETA: in case you read it , the part is about when sentencing was done, but be aware that since it is required by the Swiss IN treaty, it is very obviously something they take into account. What now , will you tell us that they should not ?

 

[Delscottio]

Surely if the Swiss haven't complied with the treaty the US will simply cancel the whole treaty in the coming days?

 

[drkitten]

Surely if the Swiss haven't complied with the treaty the US will simply cancel the whole treaty in the coming days?

I doubt it, for several reasons.

First, the Swiss have complied with the treaty. It's the Americans who have not complied with the treaty, by not producing the documents they are required to under article 10.

Second, if the United States abrogates the treaty, this means there will be no extraditions at all between the Swiss Confederation and the United States.

Third, this would also more or less result in the abrogation of the agreement to turn over the information on the various UBS clients who were evading US taxes, an agreement that took several years to negotiate and an act of the Swiss legislature to empower. (I believe that the names aren't due to be released until mid-August, so if the Americans back out now, they get nothing.) The Americans would be fools to back out of that particular agreement over one washed-up movie director.

Basically, it boils down to "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." A maxim that every diplomat knows,.... but this forum seems to draw more absolutists than diplomats.

 

[Delscottio]

I doubt it, for several reasons.

First, the Swiss have complied with the treaty. It's the Americans who have not complied with the treaty, by not producing the documents they are required to under article 10.

Second, if the United States abrogates the treaty, this means there will be no extraditions at all between the Swiss Confederation and the United States.

Third, this would also more or less result in the abrogation of the agreement to turn over the information on the various UBS clients who were evading US taxes, an agreement that took several years to negotiate and an act of the Swiss legislature to empower. (I believe that the names aren't due to be released until mid-August, so if the Americans back out now, they get nothing.) The Americans would be fools to back out of that particular agreement over one washed-up movie director.

Basically, it boils down to "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." A maxim that every diplomat knows,.... but this forum seems to draw more absolutists than diplomats.

Although I was unaware of the second part of your post, the US obviously still have confidence in the Swiss the deliver their side of the treaty which tells it own story.

 

[Lallante]

It would genuinely put a smile to my face if someone kidnaps polanski, hogties him and drops him on the doorstep of the court where he was convicted in the US.

 

[DC]

It would genuinely put a smile to my face if someone kidnaps polanski, hogties him and drops him on the doorstep of the court where he was convicted in the US.

so you are an apologist for criminals getting away with a crime because of an illegal arrest?

i thought you were so keen in international law?

ETA: and aren't you bordering the call up to violence?