I don't think it is relevant. Actually I think a lot of things cited ehre around are not relevant:
* Polanski is old / ill
* Polanski is an artist / a film maker
* she said yes (I don't care , she was 13)
* she pardoned
* the sentencing was not done
* he is not a ciztizen of X,Y,Z country
It seems we are agreed on all of this, at least. I only brought up the question because you distinguished between governments and their citizens, and I wanted a little clarification.
Check the AP newswire; it's all over there.
I will do that. Thanks.
My opinion is given that the US has steadfastly refused to acknowledge or investigate the possibility of judicial misconduct -- under Swiss law, a judge cannot make a 'non-binding' plea bargain -- that Swiss asked for the additional documents to permit the US to save diplomatic face.
In that sense, you are probably right. The Swiss would have refused extradition because the extradition request would not have been valid under Swiss law, because of demonstrable misconduct on the part of the judiciary
The US would have been offered an opportunity to come clean and accept the plea bargain as binding (essentially fixing the problem) but refused to do so.
That US law allows judges to welsh on deals doesn't mean that the Swiss need to support the US in that..
It's "misconduct" when a judge from a different jurisdiction operates within the laws of that jurisdiction? The judge had no power to make a legally-binding deal. Polanski testified, under oath, that he understood that there were no guarantees as to his sentence.
What next, the UK refusing extradition to countries where the judges don't wear wigs? The Netherlands not allowing extradition of people convicted of Drug- or Prostitution-related crimes?
He broke US law, he admitted guilt under US law, and he did so knowing that he had no guarantees as to sentencing under US law.
And I'm also sorry that the particular Swiss officials involved are big enough ******** to insist on second-guessing another court of law. [/QUTOE]
Er, second-guessing another court of law is exactly what extradition tribunals are supposed to do. That's their job.
The appropriate place to second guess the court is in the appeals court. IMO, all an extradicting country
should review is whether the person was indeed convicted (or has a valid outstanding warrant) in the requesting country. At least between countries that have extradition agreements.
Hu. HOW ? They presented the hoop (to take your own word) and *YOU* refused to jump, thena ccuse the swiss of stopping the extradition. Hu...... I think this is beyond pale.
By presenting the "hoop" in the first place.
*YOU* are second guessing the Swiss legal expert, and THAT without any own legal swiss law expertise. And you call them on second guessing ? Pot ? Kettle ?
What happened to your distinction between governments and citizens?
My "second guessing" isn't legally binding on anyone.
WHO was willing NOT to compromise ? The USA which refused tto show the document. *NOT* the swiss which requested to see the document to proceed.
The US officials were not willing to compromise. I acknowledge that, and think it was the wrong decision. I just don't think the request should have ever been made in first place.
Really I have to wonder why you *ALL* seem to respect the USA's law expert decision, but spit in anger at the Swiss's ?
The US court actually heard the case. The Swiss are just playing Monday morning quarterback. In such a clear-cut case -- criminal please guilty then flees the country -- I think extradition should be a foregone conclusion amongst friendly nations. If there was any "misconduct" in the initial trial, the "victime" has access to recourse through the appeals process.
Maybe it shouldn't be irrelevant? At least not in cases like this when so much time has passed and the victim is now an adult. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that what happened (if it did in fact happen) is ok. I just think that the wants of the victim should matter more than anything any of us think. At least after this much time has passed.
The direct consequence of this line of thought is: evade justice long enough and all is forgiven. How long it has been should be an argument
for sending him to prison, not against it.
