Looks like Polanski will get away again.

ZirconBlue said:
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Click to expand...

you are under the wrong impression that its you to decide whats needed and what not.
but in reality it was the Swiss authorities that decide whats needed and what not.

and as they didn't get it, and did not extradite Polanski, it very well looks like they needed it.

Remember also Swiss and European law have to be considered.
 
DC said:
you are under the wrong impression that its you to decide whats needed and what not.
but in reality it was the Swiss authorities that decide whats needed and what not.

and as they didn't get it, and did not extradite Polanski, it very well looks like they needed it.

Remember also Swiss and European law have to be considered.
Click to expand...
Are you not concerned that the Swiss contention that Polanski has served his time is dubious, to say the least?
 
lionking said:
Are you not concerned that the Swiss contention that Polanski has served his time is dubious, to say the least?
Click to expand...

there seem to be some things that would not be conform with swiss law, the swiss authorities wanted to check that. the requested document was denied, so the swiss could not be sure it is lawful to extradite him.
 
DC said:
there seem to be some things that would not be conform with swiss law, the swiss authorities wanted to check that. the requested document was denied, so the swiss could not be sure it is lawful to extradite him.
Click to expand...
My problem is with the nature of the crime. Polanski is guilty of what he was accused of doing and his punishment was very light. No one else would have gotten off so easily. So just because the USA refuses to hand over a few documents is no reason to let him go. I don't understand why my country refused to hand them over but remember the victim is an innocent child who was raped by an adult she trusted.

The decent thing to do would be to hand him over so that he can face the music. Its not going to happen but it should.
 
Last edited:
jimtron said:
Here's a question I have for everyone: in your view, what would have been appropriate punishment for Polanski (for sex with Geimer, not for fleeing)?
Click to expand...

Much longer than 90 days for sure.

But I am for respect of due process even if it means a guilty get out. And i am not alone. As far as i can tell even a murderer can get away with it on a technicality in the US.
 
DC said:
you are under the wrong impression that its you to decide whats needed and what not.
but in reality it was the Swiss authorities that decide whats needed and what not.
Click to expand...


People don't decide what they need. If I say "I need a million dollars", is it true that I actually need it?
 
lionking said:
Are you not concerned that the Swiss contention that Polanski has served his time is dubious, to say the least?
Click to expand...

Nope. I am concerned that you think that the Swiss legal system SHOULD NOT be concerned with that. I am pretty dubious that you know the Swiss legal system and precedence that good. Do you ?
 
Cainkane1 said:
My problem is with the nature of the crime. Polanski is guilty of what he was accused fo doing and his punishment was very light. No one else would have gotten off so easily. So just because the USA refuses to hand over a few documents is no reason to let him go. I don't understand why my country refused to hand them over but remember the victim is an innocent child who was raped by an adult she trusted.

The decent thing to do would be to hand him over so that he can face the music. Its not going to happen but it should.
Click to expand...

yeah letting him go was harsh, but there was no legal basis to hold him any longer.

and also just saying, ok we give him anyway was not legal for the swiss authorities.
when this case is so important, the US authorities should have cooperated with the Swiss authorities and provided the demanded documents.

And bringing up the victim doesn't really help, as she wish we would leave her and Polanski alone.

Also our government just recently violated our constitution and laws and handed over secret bank data to US authorities, instead of taking the longer legal way to do it. But when we ask something, a no came back.....
 
ZirconBlue said:
People don't decide what they need. If I say "I need a million dollars", is it true that I actually need it?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: when you own a million to your bank, yes for example.

btw, then you also didn't need Polanski back.
 
Aepervius said:
I am concerned that you think that the Swiss legal system SHOULD NOT be concerned with that.
Click to expand...

The reason they should not be concerned about issues relating to his sentencing is, as has been explained several times here, Polanski was never sentenced.
 
Cainkane1 said:
My problem is with the nature of the crime. Polanski is guilty of what he was accused of doing and his punishment was very light. No one else would have gotten off so easily. So just because the USA refuses to hand over a few documents is no reason to let him go. I don't understand why my country refused to hand them over but remember the victim is an innocent child who was raped by an adult she trusted.

The decent thing to do would be to hand him over so that he can face the music. Its not going to happen but it should.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. it is a perfectly reasonable reason to let him go. You DO NOT break due process depending if the crime is light or heavy. BECAUSE the USA refuse to hand the document the Swiss consider relevant it *IS* a reason to let him go. That does not change if he was found to smoke grass, have sex with unlawfuly with minor, or be Ivan the terrible.

I am sorry, but the gravity of the CRIME do not enter in my consideration in any way whatsoever, only due process. And the USA court seem to think the same, as they sometimes release heavy criminal because due process was not respected and evidence are eliminated due to technicality.

You do not make some pig more equal than other at the farm, even if you think they stink more than others, or even if they are pig called bonaparte.
 
lionking said:
The reason they should not be concerned about issues relating to his sentencing is, as has been explained several times here, Polanski was never sentenced.
Click to expand...

that is not the only aspects.
when Polanski was made false promises in court, then the extradition would be unlawful, because a swiss judge is not allowed to do that.
 
Last edited:
Lallante said:
Sentancing hasnt occured so it is utterly nonsensical to talk about whether there is jail time to do or not.
Click to expand...

A number of the anti rule-of-law crowd have suggested this delightfully counterfactual statement. Someone even suggested that the Swiss should have applied for Randi's million....

... which, of course, is "interesting" as an exercise in the desperate avoidance of reason.

Again, this is a routine part of most extradition procedures. Since the government requesting the extradition is the same government (in broad terms) as the one that's going to be doing the sentencing, this isn't as much a prediction of the future as a statement of plans and intentions.

It's no more paranormal for the State Department to say "We intend that Polanski will be sentenced in accordance with the unofficial plea bargain originally cut" or to say "we intend to ignore the non-binding plea bargain altogether" than it is for your partner to say "honey, we're going to have pasta for dinner tonight, so could you pick up a bottle of red wine on your way home?"
 
DC said:
yeah letting him go was harsh, but there was no legal basis to hold him any longer.

and also just saying, ok we give him anyway was not legal for the swiss authorities.
when this case is so important, the US authorities should have cooperated with the Swiss authorities and provided the demanded documents.

And bringing up the victim doesn't really help, as she wish we would leave her and Polanski alone.

Also our government just recently violated our constitution and laws and handed over secret bank data to US authorities, instead of taking the longer legal way to do it. But when we ask something, a no came back.....
Click to expand...
I understand. You Swiss are just trying to do whats right but this is still a bitter pill to take. I'm glad Ms. Geimer has put the incident aside and maybe everyone else should do the same thing. I wouldn't recommend Mr. Polanski visiting the USA anytime soon if ever.
 
lionking said:
Are you not concerned that the Swiss contention that Polanski has served his time is dubious, to say the least?
Click to expand...

Not at all. They do not "contend" any such thing. They asked for further evidence -- they "needed" further evidence -- to address that particular open question, a question that is deeply relevant under Swiss law.

They were refused the evidence. The US therefore failed to provide all the needed documents, and did not advance enough evidence to justify extradition. And Polanski walks.

"The defense contends that Mr. Polanski has already served his agreed-upon sentence, and offers as proof the contents of this document which we are asking you to release. You, the prosecution, contend that he has not. Is this a fair summary of the position of the United States?"

"It is."

"Are you prepared to release the document in question?"

"We are not."

"Are you prepared to rebut the defense's argument?"

"We are not."

"Are you prepared to offer proof that no such informal agreement was reached?"

"We are not. But it is the contention of the United States that we can lie as we see fit to defendants in order to extort a guilty plea from them and then later reneg on any such non-binding agreements."

"I see. Thank you very much for your time."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom