Looks like Polanski will get away again.

[Darat]

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

If it was in the UK we would look to see what time had already been spent in custody because in the UK justice systems time spent incarcerated pre-trial and during your trial is of course counted against your sentence.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think the problem with the Polanski business is that several different arguments are going on. Some are particular to the actual case itself (was the girl willing, was the plea bargain valid, would the extradition be lawful under Swiss law) others are broader and address the concepts behind the case (age of consent, statutory rape, extradition). Things get tangled because some are arguing over the underlying concepts, where others agree about the philosophical underpinnings but disagree about the facts of this particular case.

And it's all maximized because of the unpopularity of the parties involved--a skanky girl, a rich "Hollywood elite", big bad bully America, and snidely snobby Switzerland. Plus all the artsy-fartsy film types and the "think of the children!" types adding to the chaos. And a truckload of lawyers and judges, making deals and things. It's a recipe for an argument that can never be resolved rationally because there are simply too many irrational tangents to go off on.

 

[DC]

snobby

 

[Darat]

...snip...

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?

...snip...

That was not a reference to the USA but to the Swiss justice system.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

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.

...snip...

That's a paranoid CT and we're in the wrong section for that!

 

[Segnosaur]

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

If it was in the UK we would look to see what time had already been spent in custody because in the UK justice systems time spent incarcerated pre-trial and during your trial is of course counted against your sentence.

I believe the same would occur in the U.S.

However, the issue is not "Will time spent already incarcerated count", it is "What is the total length of incarceration". Only the judge can determine that, and only at the time of sentencing. Nothing that is in the document will ever change that. (For some reason, many of the "Free Polanski" group don't seem to understand that.)

 

[DC]

I believe the same would occur in the U.S.

However, the issue is not "Will time spent already incarcerated count", it is "What is the total length of incarceration". Only the judge can determine that, and only at the time of sentencing. Nothing that is in the document will ever change that. (For some reason, many of the "Free Polanski" group don't seem to understand that.)

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.....

The rule of law has already failed. For over thirty years, France, and now Switzerland, have made the deliberate choice to protect and harbor this criminal. As far as I am concerned, both these foul, wretched nations are willing accessories to his crime of drugging and sodomizing a young girl.

 

[Darat]

I believe the same would occur in the U.S.

However, the issue is not "Will time spent already incarcerated count", it is "What is the total length of incarceration". Only the judge can determine that, and only at the time of sentencing. Nothing that is in the document will ever change that. (For some reason, many of the "Free Polanski" group don't seem to understand that.)

And you don't seem to understand that the Swiss apply their definitions of what is "fair justice" when considering extradition, not the USA 's definitions. It is like I mentioned earlier, the UK won't extradite someone to the USA if we think the sentence they may get is against our principles of justice, for example the death penalty. An extreme example of this would be if a USA citizen was on death row in the USA, escaped from prison and somehow managed to get into the UK, we would not extradite him back to the USA unless we had assurances that he would no longer face the death penalty. (ETA: And that type of issue does happen, it is not just a hypothetical, albeit I don't think there has been a USA prisoner who has escaped and then managed to get into the UK but people from other countries have and gone on to successfully argue against their extradition on such grounds.)

(By the way there can be no "Free Polanski" group, thanks to the USA balls-up he is already free. )

 

[Darat]

The rule of law has already failed. For over thirty years, France, and now Switzerland, have made the deliberate choice to protect and harbor this criminal. As far as I am concerned, both these foul, wretched nations are willing accessories to his crime of drugging and sodomizing a young girl.

And the USA must also be one of these "foul, wretched nations", after all they did not do everything in their power to try to extradite him... and they even let him escape justice in the first place.

 

[Segnosaur]

However, the issue is not "Will time spent already incarcerated count", it is "What is the total length of incarceration". Only the judge can determine that, and only at the time of sentencing. Nothing that is in the document will ever change that. (For some reason, many of the "Free Polanski" group don't seem to understand that.)

Well, how exactly do you think people who believed the freeing of Polanski via magic future-telling documents should be referred to?

(And note that at least I avoided any labels such as 'pedo-lovers' and other such derogatory terms.)

 

[ZirconBlue]

I think the problem with the Polanski business is that several different arguments are going on. Some are particular to the actual case itself (was the girl willing, was the plea bargain valid, would the extradition be lawful under Swiss law) others are broader and address the concepts behind the case (age of consent, statutory rape, extradition). Things get tangled because some are arguing over the underlying concepts, where others agree about the philosophical underpinnings but disagree about the facts of this particular case.

And it's all maximized because of the unpopularity of the parties involved--a skanky girl, a rich "Hollywood elite", big bad bully America, and snidely snobby Switzerland. Plus all the artsy-fartsy film types and the "think of the children!" types adding to the chaos. And a truckload of lawyers and judges, making deals and things. It's a recipe for an argument that can never be resolved rationally because there are simply too many irrational tangents to go off on.

This is entirely too sensible a post for this thread. Could you post something surreal and creepy, yet strangely hilarious, instead?

 

[DC]

Well, how exactly do you think people who believed the freeing of Polanski via magic future-telling documents should be referred to?

(And note that at least I avoided any labels such as 'pedo-lovers' and other such derogatory terms.)

yeah no derogatory terms, but straw-men like "magic future-telling documents"

shouldn't you be pissed at the US for not delivering the requested information anf so follow the treaty?

 

[SezMe]

This is entirely too sensible a post for this thread. Could you post something surreal and creepy, yet strangely hilarious, instead?

That was my reaction. Somebody has swiped TM's account.

 

[Segnosaur]

However, the issue is not "Will time spent already incarcerated count", it is "What is the total length of incarceration". Only the judge can determine that, and only at the time of sentencing. Nothing that is in the document will ever change that. (For some reason, many of the "Free Polanski" group don't seem to understand that.)

And you don't seem to understand that the Swiss apply their definitions of what is "fair justice" when considering extradition, not the USA 's definitions. It is like I mentioned earlier, the UK won't extradite someone to the USA if we think the sentence they may get is against our principles of justice, for example the death penalty.

That's a bad comparison for several reasons:

First of all, the was never because they felt the total sentence would be too long. It was because they arbitrarily predicted that the judge was going to give a short sentence. They thought the document had some sort of mystical fortune telling ability that would indicate what the judge would do in the future.

Secondly, it would be very ironic for the Swiss to claim that the 2 year maximum sentence that Polanski might get is somehow excessive/unfair, considering that the maximum sentence for statutory rape in Switzerland is 10 years (see: http://www.historycentral.com/nationbynation/Switzerland/Human.html)

 

[Segnosaur]

yeah no derogatory terms, but straw-men like "magic future-telling documents"

Well, given the fact that nothing in the document would have actually dictated the judge just what sentence he was going to issue, if the Swiss thought it was going to indicate his remaining sentence, then it was a "magic future-telling document".

How else can you explain how such a document was going to tell them how much sentence Polanski had left on his sentence?

Oh, by the way, I notice you never comment on the fact that one of the Swiss legal experts (in a reference that you gave) gave his opinion and said he doubted the documents really were important, but that politics were.

 

[Darat]

Well, given the fact that nothing in the document would have actually dictated the judge just what sentence he was going to issue, if the Swiss thought it was going to indicate his remaining sentence, then it was a "magic future-telling document".

...snip...

If anyone is making use of magic powers in regards to the documents it is you, how did you read the content of the sealed documents - remote viewing?

 

[DC]

Well, given the fact that nothing in the document would have actually dictated the judge just what sentence he was going to issue, if the Swiss thought it was going to indicate his remaining sentence, then it was a "magic future-telling document".

How else can you explain how such a document was going to tell them how much sentence Polanski had left on his sentence?

Oh, by the way, I notice you never comment on the fact that one of the Swiss legal experts (in a reference that you gave) gave his opinion and said he doubted the documents really were important, but that politics were.

given the fact, that the document is sealed and thus you don't know what is in that document, your use of "Given the fact" is very questionable and i didnt even read the rest of the post

 

[Segnosaur]

If anyone is making use of magic powers in regards to the documents it is you, how did you read the content of the sealed documents - remote viewing?

given the fact, that the document is sealed and thus you don't know what is in that document, your use of "Given the fact" is very questionable and i didnt even read the rest of the post

I don't need to know what's in the document, because like I said, no document of that type is legally binding when determining sentence.

The document can contain a statement by the prosecutor suggesting Polanski be let off scot free, be given a medal, and given an honorary job giving acting lessons to preteen girls, and it would be irrelevant because the judge always has the right/ability to decide his own sentence. Even if the document says "Polanski is a really great guy and we think he'd never touch another person", the judge still has the authority to still put him in jail.

 

[DC]

I don't need to know what's in the document, because like I said, no document of that type is legally binding when determining sentence.

The document can contain a statement by the prosecutor suggesting Polanski be let off scot free, be given a medal, and given an honorary job giving acting lessons to preteen girls, and it would be irrelevant because the judge always has the right/ability to decide his own sentence. Even if the document says "Polanski is a really great guy and we think he'd never touch another person", the judge still has the authority to still put him in jail.

and when we think that is not fair or ok, we can say no to the extradition.