Looks like Polanski will get away again.

[drkitten]

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.

Yeah. My actual bet, if I had to guess about how the events transpired, is that the Swiss lawyers looked at the American submissions and said "look, this is a clear, open-and-shut case of judicial misconduct, and there's no effin' way we're going to extradite Polanski."

The Swiss diplomats then said "I don't think you want us to announce publically that the United States judiciary in this case behaved with such arrogant disregard for the fundamentals of justice. There's no good way to spin our decision at this point. Even worse, once we've decided publically that the United States judiciary is corrupt, that will make future extradition cases much harder to deal with, because we'll have to look at them much more closely.

"In the interests of allowing the United States to save face, we'll ask for some additional documents and let you figure out an excuse not to provide them. Then we can reject the case on the technicality of insufficient documentation and we don't have to go public with just how badly you screwed this one up."

... and I'm sure the US diplomats were just as eager to grab the face-saving solution.

-

 

[drkitten]

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 much for rule of law.....

 

[Vortigern99]

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.

Ad hominem, argument from ignorance and deliberate distortion of fact. No "rape" has been charged, tried, proven, admitted, convicted or sentenced. You can call gravity "magic" if you like, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Ad hominem, argument from ignorance and deliberate distortion of fact. No "rape" has been charged, tried, proven, admitted, convicted or sentenced.

Well, that's the problem. If he'd stuck around for the trial, he might have been acquitted.

I'm curious whether people are mad at him more for skipping the country than for the alleged crime. I think it's the notion that someone with sufficient money and influence can escape justice that offends so much, rather than the particulars of the actual case. It's not so much whether he's guilty or not, it's that he, unlike most others, was able to simply dodge the question entirely. He's not playing by the rules everyone else has to.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Ad hominem

Saying I didn't previously read someone's post is an ad hominem, now?

, argument from ignorance and deliberate distortion of fact.

It's neither.

No "rape" has been charged, tried, proven, admitted, convicted or sentenced.

You, like many on this forum, seem to be hung up on legal terminology and the idea that a court determines truth. I don't care whether he is legally considered a rapist. I only care that he is one in reality.

You can call gravity "magic" if you like, but that doesn't make it so.

It's not a matter of redefining terms it's a matter of standard usage vs legal jargon. Just like how "integrate" has a different meaning in math than it does in standard usage.

Well, that's the problem. If he'd stuck around for the trial, he might have been acquitted.

I'm curious whether people are mad at him more for skipping the country than for the alleged crime. I think it's the notion that someone with sufficient money and influence can escape justice that offends so much, rather than the particulars of the actual case. It's not so much whether he's guilty or not, it's that he, unlike most others, was able to simply dodge the question entirely. He's not playing by the rules everyone else has to.

Well, I think he's a dispicable human being for what he did, but, yes, the real issue is that someone is being able to evade justice because of his money and fame. If you feel you have not gotten a fair trial or fair sentencing, the proper recourse is through the appeals process, not fleeing the country.

ETA: He could only have been acquitted on appeal. He had already pled guilty to the crime.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

I think you need to read it again; we'll wait. There is no use of the word "rape", statutory or otherwise, in that article. Your personal opinion that unlawful sex with a minor qualifies as rape of any description is not shared by the laws of California.

Incidentally, two sixteen-year-olds having sex would also violate this section of the Code.
And, as has been pointed out, the word "rape" isn't found anywhere in the section.

I'm trying to figure out if you guys are being deliberately obtuse to make a point or not. We are defining the term unlawful sexual intercourse and the term "statutory rape".

However, what I say that California's statute to which Polanski plead guilty to is the same as the definition of "statutory rape" (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Statutory+Rape). Statutory rape is unlawful sex with a minor, whether with consent or without. See, you can define it without using the word "rape".

Add to it the drugs and the fact that she said "no" and I would be willing to remove the qualifier "statutory".

To repeat, my point is that what Polanski plead to in California is the same thing as "statutory rape" in other states and trying to sugarcoat it by removing the word "rape" from the description is asinine.

As far as I can tell, this is the current (2010) version of the code. Are you sure that it was the same in 1977, when Polanski plead guilty?

No I'm not sure. I looked up the specific statute to which he plead and this definition came up. I am assuming that there has been no significant changes to the criminal code, but I am willing to be shown otherwise.

 

[DC]

when she said no, it is rape in my book, and dependent on the drug, a no isnt even needed to be rape.

 

[Segnosaur]

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?

If the "deal" basically says "We have not yet determined your jail time" (as Polanski agreed to in court) then yes, it is quite fair.

Not all plea deals involve guarantees for the expected length of sentence.

 

[Segnosaur]

some expert opinions

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/special..._makes_legal_sense.html?cid=17955298&rss=true

Interesting list of opinions. I particularly like this one:
Stefan Heimgartner, an expert in international legal assistance at Zurich University who has looked into the Polanski case, also said the Swiss extradition decision was correct. “But I wonder whether the missing documents were really that crucial for the decision,” he told swissinfo.ch.He also raised doubts over the US’ interest in criminally prosecuting Polanski over the past 33 years. He concluded: “Political aspects most likely played a part in the decision-making."

So, one of the "Swiss legal experts" that DC referenced admits that the documents (supposedly a 'key' reason he was not extradited) may not have been really that important (yet bizarrely he still things it was the correct decision).

Also there was this line:

Cosandey added that Polanski’s fame should not in theory have influenced the case but that it was hard to say overall.

So, he's not saying it was a "political decision", but he can't really guarantee overall.

Another argument from that link:

“Polanski was never caught at a border control, so the Swiss government argues that Polanski must have been confident that nobody was after him when he accepted this invitation to the Zurich film festival.”

That one is fairly easy to debunk.

First of all, why is it necessary for the U.S. to announce to criminals what their plans are?

Secondly, the idea that he thought "nobody was after me" is bunk... He avoided visiting Britain because it was more extradition friendly, plus there were reports that he directed certain scenes in his latest movie remotely as a way to avoid apprehension. So that doesn't sound like the actions of someone who is confident "nobody was after him".

 

[DC]

lol admit? guarantee? LOL

 

[Segnosaur]

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?

Perhaps the US was trying to preemptively avoid problems by at least attempting to get the documents in an attempt to provide even the tiniest chance that Switzerland might try to avoid extradition. (i.e. the U.S. knew the documents weren't relevant, but attempted to avoid the chance that they would claim they were uncooperative.)

What does Switzerland stand to gain from not extraditing him?

One other poster already gave several reasons how Switzerland might benefit (e.g. better relations with related countries.) There's also the fact that they could be seen as "tweeking the nose" of the Big Bad USA.

However, the question is, why do we have to assume Switzerland as a whole gained by not extraditing him? The decision to release Polanski on a technicality (based on a supposed ability to predict the future) may have been based on the desires of only a small group of people within the Swiss government who did things based on their own preferences/desires rather than those that benefited the country as a whole.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

when she said no, it is rape in my book, and dependent on the drug, a no isnt even needed to be rape.

Exactly

 

[Segnosaur]

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 much for rule of law.....

What if the person who did the kidnapping fled to the U.S., and the country where he was kidnapped from was stonewalled by the U.S. requesting proof that psychics can tell the future?

 

[AvalonXQ]

If we're not talking about legal technicalities but just about standard usage, consensual sex with a sexually active individual isn't "rape", regardless of age. "Rape" is nonconsensual sex.
So, if he drugged her and she said no, it's rape. If she consented to drugs and to sex, it's not.
Certainly, then, the law he was convicted under doesn't make him a rapist. As I said, two sixteen-year-olds having sex could be convicted under that law; calling both of them rapists would be quite unreasonable.

 

[jimtron]

Well, that's the problem. If he'd stuck around for the trial, he might have been acquitted.

I'm curious whether people are mad at him more for skipping the country than for the alleged crime. I think it's the notion that someone with sufficient money and influence can escape justice that offends so much, rather than the particulars of the actual case. It's not so much whether he's guilty or not, it's that he, unlike most others, was able to simply dodge the question entirely. He's not playing by the rules everyone else has to.

The judge wasn't playing by the rules either. Which in no way lets Polanski off the hook, but I'm just saying...

 

[Vortigern99]

I will continue to assert that those using the term "rape" are doing so inaccurately, disingenuously and erroneously. I cannot continue to oppose every instance of this, nor rebut point-by-point the fallacious and illogical arguments of those who seek to justify their misuse of the term with appeals to emotion and irrelevant legal definitions based on other states' use of the term and/or their own irrational biases. My final statement on the matter is factually correct: Polanski was not charged with, tried for, convicted of or sentenced for rape, nor did he admit to committing rape, nor did the forensic evidence taken from the victim (of unlawful underage sex) corroborate her accusation of rape. You can of course continue to call it rape, but you're using the term erroneously to achieve an emotional effect.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Polanski not paying the civil suit

JUst saying but it is mentionned that Geimer said in 1997 that she was paid (see wiki ojn Polanski).

I didn't think to check Wikipedia, but yeah, there are references suggesting she was paid. However, after reading the references I find a few things disturbing:
- Polanski agrees to pay in a civil settlement
- Polanski stonewalls the victim, refusing to pay her for years, despite legal attempts by the victim
- Victim then changes the way they handle things, they actually start suggesting Polanski should be forgiven, after which the victim receives her money

So, anyone who claims that Polanski should be free because "the victim forgave him" should keep in mind that publicly forgiving Polanski may have been the only reason she received a court settlement that she deserved.

The statements appear to be from interviews to the English press. So why exactly is it suspect?

Because I have yet to see such official statement not given in the language of their own folk. YOu find that surprising, but it is usually a law to at least make such statement available in the local language.

Ummm... "usually a law"? Can you point to whether such a law actually exists in Switzerland?

You have YET to prove that the person making the initial statement had the authority and knowledge to say in advance what would be the decision of the ministery after careful reading of the request.

The person that had made the statement was described as a "Ministry spokesman". Just how many government spokesmen do you know who actually keep their jobs after more or less "making things up"?

And more importantly, such press release and interview are NOT BINDING.

You're right, they are not binding. And of course the Swiss can completely change their mind at any point after that statement.

But to me, it is at least suggestive that the decision to release Polanski may not have been based on a true desire for the document, but on simply using it as a red herring to hide their true motives.

Which of course would be really amazing, since nobody actually knows how much time was going to be given. Not even those magic documents.

Itr does not MATTER.

Soooo... that magic document gave them the ability to tell the future? Amazing thing that. Can it also predict next week's lottery numbers?

Once again... regardless of what was in the document, the ultimate decision for what Polanski would receive for sentencing would ultimately be up to the judge. Even if the document stated that the prosecutor suggested Polanski should be released immediately and given a medal, and be given an honorary position teaching acting to public school girls, the judge was under no requirement to follow that recommendation for sentencing. The judge had the option of sentencing Polanski to time served, a full 90 days, 2 years, or anything in between.

So, the Swiss were basically trying to predict the future with that magic document.

What matter is that the swiss felt they required some info and the USA refused it.

The issue is why they requested it. The reason why they requested it seems a bit suspicious. The assumption by many is that the only reason they requested it is to give them some excuse to squash the extradition request.

Please show me in the treaty where it gives the Swiss the right to determine sentence length for American felons

Point 9.4.D

Once again... he was never sentenced. You can't tell 'remaining sentence' if the sentence has never been given. Unless of course you can predict the future.

Think the Swiss should apply for the Million Dollar Challenge?

... but even if you think it was not applicable point 10 give them the RIGHT to require a document for their decision.

Yup, they can request anything they want. However, its possible that such requests can be made not because they truly need the information, but because they simply want to stonewall the extradition request. That appears to be the case here.

If they think the sentence length is an important point, and as 9.4.D shows, they think it is otherwise it would not be ion the treaty,

Yeah, sentence length is important. But the sentence had never been determined. Unless you can predict the future with that magic document.

Or maybe that magic document has some sort of mind-control technology built in.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I will continue to assert that those using the term "rape" are doing so inaccurately, disingenuously and erroneously. I cannot continue to oppose every instance of this, nor rebut point-by-point the fallacious and illogical arguments of those who seek to justify their misuse of the term with appeals to emotion and irrelevant legal definitions based on other states' use of the term and/or their own irrational biases. My final statement on the matter is factually correct: Polanski was not charged with, tried for, convicted of or sentenced for rape, nor did he admit to committing rape, nor did the forensic evidence taken from the victim (of unlawful underage sex) corroborate her accusation of rape. You can of course continue to call it rape, but you're using the term erroneously to achieve an emotional effect.

The thinking behind the concept of statutory rape is that some parties are unable to give consent, legally, even if they are willing. In this case it's because of age--it's considered that there is an age below which people are too young to give legal consent because they are not mature enough to understand what they are doing. Jurisdictions vary on what that age happens to be, and people frequently disagree on when that line should be drawn. Very few people argue that there is no need for a line, though. If you believe a 13 year old is mature enough to give legal consent to sex, how about a 12 year old? 11? Continue, subtracting one year each time. Sooner or later you'll reach a point where you will agree that the party of that age or below should not be considered able to give legal consent, even if they are willing.

Then ask yourself "what is it called when someone has sex with someone who cannot consent"? We tack the word "statutory" in front to specify that it's not the kind of rape that happens when one party is able to consent but doesn't, but that doesn't mean it's not rape at all.


eta: I don't see why this is controversial. We draw lines for what age a person has to be to be held responsible for crimes as well. Why? Because below a certain age people are considered not responsible for their actions.

 

[carlitos]

This is why a few of the posters here remind us that she was "already sexually active," and that she said that she said "no," but we don't know for sure, etc. They are consciously trying to minimize the fact that a 13-year-old simply can't consent, in the same sense as an adult.

If an 8 year old was already "playing doctor" with a peer, and then "consented" to play doctor with a 30-year-old, most of us wouldn't have a problem with calling that sexual assault or even rape. The kid's prior activity would have no bearing on this judgement.

ETA - I can't find the transcripts of the girl's testimony now, but I read them a few years ago and they were pretty chilling.

 

[Georg]

So, if he drugged her and she said no, it's rape. If she consented to drugs and to sex, it's not.

Would you make that argument always, independant of the age of the girl?

If yes, what is your rationale behind that?

If no, what is the appropriate age limit in your opinion?