Looks like Polanski will get away again.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Again how can you determine that since the the information is not available. How do you know it doesn't contain something that would make the extradition unlawful under Swiss law?

This is a non-sequitur. The Swiss stated very specifically why they wanted the document. It wasn't for some random fishing expedition. They state very clearly that they wanted the document because they believed that it showed that Polanski "served his sentence." My point is that Polanski was never sentenced, and testimony about an informal promise doesn't constitute being sentenced. Their reasoning for needing the document is nonsensical. Even if they had it, their reasoning is still nonsensical.

You're trying to introduce some vague idea that maybe aside from what they were actually wanted to know, maybe there is some unknown violation of an unspecified law somewhere, and the US has to prove a negative.

 

[DC]

This is a non-sequitur. The Swiss stated very specifically why they wanted the document. It wasn't for some random fishing expedition. They state very clearly that they wanted the document because they believed that it showed that Polanski "served his sentence." My point is that Polanski was never sentenced, and testimony about an informal promise doesn't constitute being sentenced.

You're trying to introduce some vague idea that maybe aside from what they were actually wanted to know, maybe there is some unknown violation of an unspecified law somewhere, and the US has to prove a negative.

you know, in this case its not only US laws that have to be considered, it is also Swiss laws that have to be considered.

 

[Cainkane1]

I can only say this. Polanski better stay out of the USA.

 

[Aepervius]

The document they asked for is not relevant.

This is one of those few case where I will use the argument by authority and ask you "what is your expertise in Swiss law which allow you to say that?".

And to boot, real legal swiss expert seem to disagree (see link from DC) :

"Swiss legal experts say that Switzerland has overall made a pragmatic and correct decision in not extraditing film director Roman Polanski to the United States."

 

[Darat]

...snip...

But case in point NEITHER do you, and unless mistaken NEITHER of us is an expert in Swiss law.

And none of us know what is in the documentation that has been sealed so we are in the same position as the Swiss were. The Swiss (and us) are aware that there are some important documents (and I don't think that is an unfounded assumption since whatever was in them was considered important enough to be sealed by a USA court) that they were not given access to.

 

[Aepervius]

And none of us what is in the documentation that has been sealed so we are in the same position as the Swiss were. The Swiss (and us) are aware that there are some important documents (and I don't think that is an unfounded assumption since whatever was in them was considered important enough to be sealed by a USA court) that they were not given access to.

ETA: i think you meant "And none of us knows what "

Yep agreed.

The bottom line is there are some grass-root legal "expert" here which seem they know the case better than Swiss legal expert. I have to question on which authorithy they do that.

I would prefer to see Polanski in prison for what he did, but I would rather have him free than break the due process of the extradition.

 

[Darat]

This is a non-sequitur. The Swiss stated very specifically why they wanted the document. It wasn't for some random fishing expedition. They state very clearly that they wanted the document because they believed that it showed that Polanski "served his sentence." My point is that Polanski was never sentenced, and testimony about an informal promise doesn't constitute being sentenced. Their reasoning for needing the document is nonsensical. Even if they had it, their reasoning is still nonsensical.

...snip..

No they didn't - what they said was that "It had been alleged that the transcript would show..." and it appears that under Swiss law and the extradition treaty that if what had been alleged was true then he could not be extradited. The USA were not willing to provide the documentation that apparently would have showed that the allegations were true or false and therefore the Swiss have concluded that they cannot be certain that the extradition would be lawful.

You're trying to introduce some vague idea that maybe aside from what they were actually wanted to know, maybe there is some unknown violation of an unspecified law somewhere, and the US has to prove a negative.

Not at all. What I am saying is that the Swiss made a request for certain documentation, the USA decided not to supply that and in the light of that the Swiss decided that they could not be certain that the extradition would be lawful.

The Swiss have merely followed their due process, unfortunately given that it was not possible for them to allow the extradition to continue.

 

[Darat]

Just wondering about this - for those that seem to think he should have been extradited to the USA, why do you think you understand Swiss law better than the Swiss officials involved in this case? And do you think the Swiss didn't want to extradite him?

 

[drkitten]

you know, in this case its not only US laws that have to be considered, it is also Swiss laws that have to be considered.

And, of course, the other thing to consider is whether US law represents (what the Swiss consider to be) "justice."

A lot of the posters on this and the related thread have pointed out that the judge was under no obligation to respect the deal that he himself had helped to broker and had signed off on.

Well, around my neck of the woods, that's called "welshing" and it's not a good thing. If US law explicitly empowers judges to welsh on deals that they themselves have helped write, then US law itself is unjust -- and the Swiss could quite rightly refuse to extradite, not on the grounds that the case did not follow US law, but that US law in this particular instance did not respect the requirements of justice.

 

[Aepervius]

And, of course, the other thing to consider is whether US law represents (what the Swiss consider to be) "justice."

A lot of the posters on this and the related thread have pointed out that the judge was under no obligation to respect the deal that he himself had helped to broker and had signed off on.

Well, around my neck of the woods, that's called "welshing" and it's not a good thing. If US law explicitly empowers judges to welsh on deals that they themselves have helped write, then US law itself is unjust -- and the Swiss could quite rightly refuse to extradite, not on the grounds that the case did not follow US law, but that US law in this particular instance did not respect the requirements of justice.

The argument of the poster (which i think in most of the case is correct) is that it is usually the DA which make the agreement, and can advise the judge on it, but the judge seem in no way forced to respect the agreement.

The defense lawyer contentious point in this case is that the judge *himself* seem to have made a step toward and backward (your welshing), while at the same time some poster say "it did not happen that way".

I don't have any necessary info to decide either way, and I don't think anybody else has except the person present at the time. And maybe , who knows, the final answer is in those sealed docs. or maybe not.

 

[Darat]

In the UK we often hear of requests for extradition being turned down because our courts didn't consider the other country's judicial system sound or fair or even because any potential punishment they could receive if they were found guilty is something we consider wrong. For example we don't allow extradition if there is the possibility they will receive the death penalty in the country that is requesting the extradition.

 

[EvilSmurf]

And do you think the Swiss didn't want to extradite him?

This is precisely what I think. I think they used the minutiae of the treaty to get out of said extradition.

 

[DC]

And, of course, the other thing to consider is whether US law represents (what the Swiss consider to be) "justice."

A lot of the posters on this and the related thread have pointed out that the judge was under no obligation to respect the deal that he himself had helped to broker and had signed off on.

Well, around my neck of the woods, that's called "welshing" and it's not a good thing. If US law explicitly empowers judges to welsh on deals that they themselves have helped write, then US law itself is unjust -- and the Swiss could quite rightly refuse to extradite, not on the grounds that the case did not follow US law, but that US law in this particular instance did not respect the requirements of justice.

good point.

 

[DC]

This is precisely what I think. I think they used the minutiae of the treaty to get out of said extradition.

why ?

 

[Darat]

This is precisely what I think. I think they used the minutiae of the treaty to get out of said extradition.

Why would they do that?

 

[EvilSmurf]

why ?

Why would they do that?

Because Polanski made good movies and is a Holocaust Survivor and has his wife killed by the Manson family. I'm not saying that any of that justifies what he did, but I have seen people use one (or a combination) of the above to justify it.

 

[DC]

Because Polanski made good movies and is a Holocaust Survivor and has his wife killed by the Manson family. I'm not saying that any of that justifies what he did, but I have seen people use one (or a combination) of the above to justify it.

i don't think that influenced the case. If, i can imagine that our relationship with France and Poland had a lot more influence, that we didn't want to piss them off.

 

[drkitten]

The argument of the poster (which i think in most of the case is correct) is that it is usually the DA which make the agreement, and can advise the judge on it, but the judge seem in no way forced to respect the agreement.

I believe that's an accurate summary of US law.

From the Swiss point of view, however, this raises the issue of whether that's a good (fair, just) situation or not. If the judge is not obligated to respect the bargain struck by the DA,.... well, see my earlier post about "welshing on a deal."

The defense lawyer contentious point in this case is that the judge *himself* seem to have made a step toward and backward (your welshing), while at the same time some poster say "it did not happen that way".

... and since the defence makes that point, it must be addressed somehow, even if only to be dismissed out of hand. The Swiss opted not to dismiss it out of hand and requested further information, which was refused. Small wonder the extradition failed.

This isn't really that unusual. As Darat points out, the UK makes a point of not extraditing people who might face the death penalty. The "usual" procedure in such case is for the United States (or whoever) to give a firm undertaking that the defendant will not be sentenced to death. It's never been clear to me on what basis the Department of State has the authority to make such an undertaking, or what would happen if a jury in Alabama decided "sod it all, we're sentencing this thug to death" in the teeth of such an agreement.

But one of the things that would happen is it would suddenly become a lot more difficult for the US to get extraditions in death penalty cases, since the USA would have proven itself to be an untrustworthy bastard.

That's basically the situation here, as I see it. The Swiss want to know what will happen to Polanski, just as Her Majesty's Government might want to know what would happen to one of HMG's prisoners. The US has refused to give any undertakings,.... and in fact, has refused to provide documents that the Swiss consider relevant to determine whether someone is breaking an implicit, if not legally binding, bargain.

In light of that refusal, I don't see any possible grounds for complaint by the Americans.

 

[Darat]

Because Polanski made good movies and is a Holocaust Survivor and has his wife killed by the Manson family. I'm not saying that any of that justifies what he did, but I have seen people use one (or a combination) of the above to justify it.

Wow. So I take it he might as well go back to the USA because he won't be found guilty.

 

[Lallante]

All you apologists should ask yourself if you would be going to the same lengths to justify a very strained interpretation of extraditions law were the subject of it NOT a famous and talented film director.

If the anal-rapist pedophile was a black labourer with a previous assault conviction for example.

Personally I hope someone takes this into their own hands. I wont go so far as to condone vigilante justice, but some 'private rendition' to face US justice would be 100% justifiable in my opinion.