Looks like Polanski will get away again.

[qayak]

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

Thank you. It is amazing the number of people in this thread that add 2 and 2 and get 237,894.993.

 

[lionking]

Thank you. It is amazing the number of people in this thread that add 2 and 2 and get 237,894.993.

Have you not read this thread? An earlier post has a transcript of Polanski being told that the sentencing decision was not final and he agreed with this.

But carry on. It's highly amusing reading things like "fair justice" when applied to scum like Polanski.

 

[DC]

Have you not read this thread? An earlier post has a transcript of Polanski being told that the sentencing decision was not final and he agreed with this.

But carry on. It's highly amusing reading things like "fair justice" when applied to scum like Polanski.

so fair justice should be applied only to good guys? where do we draw the line?

 

[Segnosaur]

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

Ummm... "fair"?

First of all, the Judge could sentence Polanski to a maximum of 2 years. In Switzerland the maximum penalty for Statutory rape is 10 years. So, nobody can claim "American penalties are too rough".

Secondly, if your complaint is that the Judge has ultimate authority to determine sentences, then I have a shock for you... Many countries allow judges to establish sentences that don't correspond to plea agreements. Canada certainly does (See: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/icg-gci/pb2-rpc2.html). Wouldn't surprise me if Switzerland had the same rule.

 

[lionking]

so fair justice should be applied only to good guys? where do we draw the line?

You again (intentionally?) miss my point.

But keep on defending the indefensible. If Australia were refusing to release Polanski on these flimsy grounds I would hold exactly the same position.

 

[Segnosaur]

Have you not read this thread? An earlier post has a transcript of Polanski being told that the sentencing decision was not final and he agreed with this.

But carry on. It's highly amusing reading things like "fair justice" when applied to scum like Polanski.

so fair justice should be applied only to good guys? where do we draw the line?

Your decision to concentrate only on the second "scum" line and ignore the part where Polanski said the sentence decision was not final is noted.

 

[DC]

Ummm... "fair"?

First of all, the Judge could sentence Polanski to a maximum of 2 years. In Switzerland the maximum penalty for Statutory rape is 10 years. So, nobody can claim "American penalties are too rough".

Secondly, if your complaint is that the Judge has ultimate authority to determine sentences, then I have a shock for you... Many countries allow judges to establish sentences that don't correspond to plea agreements. Canada certainly does (See: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/icg-gci/pb2-rpc2.html). Wouldn't surprise me if Switzerland had the same rule.

i think also in Switzerland it is the judge that has the authority to set the sentences. But i doubt he is allowed to make false promises.

 

[Segnosaur]

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

Ummm... you didn't even read the complete post, and you're responding on this thead?

What the heck is wrong with you? Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you don't even bother reading complete posts?

Here are the facts:

- You posted a reference to "Swiss Legal Experts" (it was your reference)
- One of those 2 main experts themselves states "The documents probably weren't important" (So this is one Swiss expert that seems to be contradicting you and others who hold up the lack of documentation as a holy grail)
- Neither of the 2 man experts quoted were willing to discount the effect of politics/fame in making the decision

And remember, that's your reference.

Here's a suggestion, not only should you try reading complete posts before you respond, you should also read the references that you yourself provide.

 

[DC]

i see it that way.

Polanski's lawyers have brought up the point that Polanski was promised that the 42 days he did would be the complete sentence. Which in turn would mean he had no more sentence to do, so it would not be legal to extradite him.
The swiss authorities have the plight to check that. They requested a document to check that, and the USA denied that document. So the swiss authorities had no other legal way as to reject the extradition request.

extradition involves a lot of laws, US, Swiss and European laws.

 

[lionking]

i think also in Switzerland it is the judge that has the authority to set the sentences. But i doubt he is allowed to make false promises.

Argument from incredulity. Your doubt means nothing, sorry.

 

[DC]

Ummm... you didn't even read the complete post, and you're responding on this thead?

What the heck is wrong with you? Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you don't even bother reading complete posts?

Here are the facts:

- You posted a reference to "Swiss Legal Experts" (it was your reference
- One of those 2 main experts themselves questions "The documents probably weren't important" (So this is one Swiss expert that seems to be contradicting you and others who hold up the lack of documentation as a holy grail)
- Neither of the 2 man experts quoted were willing to discount the effect of politics/fame in making the decision

And remember, that's your reference.

Here's a suggestion, not only should you try reading complete posts before you respond, you should also read the references that you yourself provide.

nonfactual posts that start with "given the fact" are hardly to take serious.

 

[lionking]

i see it that way.

Polanski's lawyers have brought up the point that Polanski was promised that the 42 days he did would be the complete sentence. Which in turn would mean he had no more sentence to do, so it would not be legal to extradite him.
The swiss authorities have the plight to check that. They requested a document to check that, and the USA denied that document. So the swiss authorities had no other legal way as to reject the extradition request.

extradition involves a lot of laws, US, Swiss and European laws.

So you haven't read this thread then.

and ignore the part where Polanski said the sentence decision was not final

 

[Segnosaur]

i see it that way.

Just remember.... the way you see things involves partial information.

You don't read complete posts, and it appears you don't read references to Swiss legal experts provided by you yourself that state the "Documents probably weren't important".

But then, what do Swiss legal experts actually know?

Polanski's lawyers have brought up the point that Polanski was promised that the 42 days he did would be the complete sentence. Which in turn would mean he had no more sentence to do, so it would not be legal to extradite him.

What Polanski's lawyers assumed is irrelevant. Polanski agreed in open court that he could be subject to additional jail time.

If Polanski's lawyers have any sort of official documents that suggest the 42 days would suffice, they should provide them.

Do you really think any lawyer (especially ones representing high profile cases) would really be dumb enough to enter ino any sort of agreement without some sort of documentation?

 

[Segnosaur]

nonfactual posts that start with "given the fact" are hardly to take serious.

I see...

In that case, please point to the evidence that shows that judges are required to abide by plea agreements.

 

[Ziggurat]

i think also in Switzerland it is the judge that has the authority to set the sentences. But i doubt he is allowed to make false promises.

What false promise? The judge in the original case never made any false promise. Judges don't make plea agreements, prosecutors do. And the promise the prosecution made was that they would recommend a light sentence as part of the plea bargain. Judges typically abide by plea bargain recommendations for sentencing, but there's no requirement for them to, and Polanski was told so explicitly in court.

 

[DC]

Just remember.... the way you see things involves partial information.

You don't read complete posts, and it appears you don't read references to Swiss legal experts provided by you yourself that state the "Documents probably weren't important".

But then, what do Swiss legal experts actually know?


What Polanski's lawyers assumed is irrelevant. Polanski agreed in open court that he could be subject to additional jail time.

If Polanski's lawyers have any sort of official documents that suggest the 42 days would suffice, they should provide them.

Do you really think any lawyer (especially ones representing high profile cases) would really be dumb enough to enter ino any sort of agreement without some sort of documentation?

it was one post i didn't read of yours, get a grip.

the swiss authorities wanted to get that document, to check their claim. the USA said we don't give it. what were they supposed to so? oh well you know what, he, we give him anyway.

cooperation is something that needs to come from both sides. when the US authorities think they don't need to cooperated, so be it.

 

[DC]

What false promise? The judge in the original case never made any false promise. Judges don't make plea agreements, prosecutors do. And the promise the prosecution made was that they would recommend a light sentence as part of the plea bargain. Judges typically abide by plea bargain recommendations for sentencing, but there's no requirement for them to, and Polanski was told so explicitly in court.

it was claimed that he was promised that the 42 days were all he had to serve.
a document was requested to check that, and was denied, extradition request denied.

 

[Segnosaur]

it was one post i didn't read of yours, get a grip.

Yet you also appear to have not read the reference from Swiss legal experts that contains the statement regarding "the documents probably didn't matter".

the swiss authorities wanted to get that document, to check their claim [ that 42 days was promised ] .

And once again, why should we put any faith in the claim that 42 days was promised? Why exactly would lawyers be dumb enough to make any sort of agreement without getting something in writing?

It boggles the mind.

Were Polanski's lawyers present when that document was generated? If so, why don't they testify? If they weren't present when that document was generated, then how can it contain details of a plea agreement that the judge agreed to?

cooperation is something that needs to come from both sides.

And what sort of cooperation involves asking for magical fortune-telling documents?

What about making extradition agreements influenced by politics as your very own Swiss Legal Experts suggest may have happened?

Oh, did I mention those opinions by Swiss legal experts were in a reference that you provided?

 

[DC]

I see...

In that case, please point to the evidence that shows that judges are required to abide by plea agreements.

he surely is not allowed to tell untrue things, like your 42 days is all you have to serve, when that isn't the case.

 

[DC]

Yet you also appear to have not read the reference from Swiss legal experts that contains the statement regarding "the documents probably didn't matter".



And once again, why should we put any faith in the claim that 42 days was promised? Why exactly would lawyers be dumb enough to make any sort of agreement without getting something in writing?

It boggles the mind.

Were Polanski's lawyers present when that document was generated? If so, why don't they testify? If they weren't present when that document was generated, then how can it contain details of a plea agreement that the judge agreed to?



And what sort of cooperation involves asking for magical fortune-telling documents?

What about making extradition agreements influenced by politics as your very own Swiss Legal Experts suggest may have happened?

Oh, did I mention those opinions by Swiss legal experts were in a reference that you provided?

you just cant quit the strawmen