Looks like Polanski will get away again.

[drkitten]

All you apologists should ask yourself if you would be going to the same lengths to justify a very strained interpretation of extraditions law

Aside from the fact that there's nothing at all "strained" about it,.... yes, I would.

It's a fairly straightforward application of international law. Swiss is a sovereign nation and under no obligation at all to extradite anyone. Extradition is a favor, asked by the United States.

If you're going to ask a favor, and then be a dick about it, be prepared to have your favor refused.

 

[Darat]

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.

...snip...

"apologists" for what?

 

[DC]

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.

have you ever cared about any other of the dozens of extradition requests per year?
or do you now care because you heard about it because he is famous?

EAT: and you would rather violate other countries laws to get him, instead of unsealing the requested document and give the other side the legal grounds to extradite him? why not clean your own house before you start cleaning other peoples houses?

 

[Lallante]

Aside from the fact that there's nothing at all "strained" about it,.... yes, I would.

It's a fairly straightforward application of international law. Swiss is a sovereign nation and under no obligation at all to extradite anyone. Extradition is a favor, asked by the United States.

If you're going to ask a favor, and then be a dick about it, be prepared to have your favor refused.

Its not a 'favour' its the application of a bilateral treaty.

Extradition requests are almost never refused between western developed countries in situations where the accused has already been convicted in the requesting country.

To request documents unrelated to the accused's guilt or innocence is practically unheard of.

Its completely clear that the Swiss looked for a way to get out of their obligations. They haven't behaved contrary to their treaty obligations, true, but they have essentially used a loophole to achieve this.

The US should have just given them the transcript in any case - the swiss still wouldnt have handed him over but at least they would have to have admitted that they were swapping their own judgement for that of the US.

 

[Lallante]

have you ever cared about any other of the dozens of extradition requests per year?
or do you now care because you heard about it because he is famous?

EAT: and you would rather violate other countries laws to get him, instead of unsealing the requested document and give the other side the legal grounds to extradite him? why not clean your own house before you start cleaning other peoples houses?

My feelings apply equally to any extradition case where political considerations override the rule of law.

Case in point would be the 'aspergers' hacker in Scotland.

 

[Darat]

What does Switzerland stand to gain from not extraditing him?

 

[qayak]

Nope. You can repeat it all you want, that doesn't make it true.

"Both parties" doesn't include the judge. The judge is not bound by a plea bargain agreed to by the prosecution and the defense. The judge is also not bound by a backroom promise. He is bound by what sentence he gives, in court, and signs. He never did that, hence there was no sentence.

Funny you didn't address my point above: if he already was sentenced, why were his own lawyers requesting him to be sentenced?

Obviously you enjoy ignoring the facts. The judge was bound by the agreement because he originally agreed to it. Then, because of pressure, he decided to change it.

The original agreement, which the judge agreed to, included the sentence.

Polansky served the sentence the judge originally agreed to.

The judge made it clear that he was going to ignore the agreement that he had already agreed to and give Polansky a sentence that would save the judge's political skin.

The Swiss, by law, can't extradite someone who has served their sentence. The question then becomes, was there an agreement and did Polansky serve the time agreed to. The evidence they had in their possession showed there was an agreement and Polansky served the agreed sentence. They then asked for other documents that could show there was no agreement and Polansky had not served his sentence. The US refused to unseal the documents so the Swiss had no choice but to go with the evidence and release Polansky.

I suspect that the US was as eager to let this go as Polansky was. There are only two scenarios for the judge, stick to the agreement or don't stick to the agreement. Either way the US justice system was going to look pretty pathetic. At least by not revealing the documents, the US can keep everybody guessing as to why their system is a joke.

 

[Lallante]

"apologists" for what?

Polanski skipping bail. Switzerland and France harbouring him. People heaping accolades on him. Rape. Take your pick.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

So what I've learned in this thread is that Polanski wasn't sentenced, Switzerland refused to extradite him based on a failure to submit documents it had publicly stated weren't necessary, and the non-binding plea bargain constitutes his sentence. Does anyone here actually listen to each other?

 

[Lallante]

What does Switzerland stand to gain from not extraditing him?

Well they are being put under massive political pressure by France for a start. Add to that that their banks rather rely on criminal elements being guaranteed their quiet anonymity. Finally there are plenty of loony polanski fans who would be aghast if he was locked up - his genious transends rape and pedophilia you see...

 

[ZirconBlue]

It would be a good compromise if he changed his name to Rapelanski.

I support your compromise proposal.

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.

I'd say that if you are unwilling to abide by a country's legal system then you should not travel to that country. And if you do, you should be damn sure not to commit any crimes while there.

And we have an appeals process to address the situation.

By resisting extradition France, and now Switzerland, are encouraging people to flee prosecution. Is that really the message that countries that supposedly support "The Rule of Law" really ought to be sending?

To my mind, extradition between free, democratic countries should be basically a rubber-stamp process, to be impeded only in exceptional circumstances.

And, yes, I know that means that the treaties we've signed would probably have to be rewritten.

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.

Why? He didn't break Swiss law. He didn't commit the crime in Switzerland. He isn't a Swiss citizen. And, it's not like he's up for the death penalty. Americans get roundly chastized if we even question a legal result from another country, but here, the Swiss are not only second-guessing a court of law, but actively imposing their will on that court. I can't help but believe that opinions would still be soundly against the US, were the situation reversed (USA blocking extradition).

 

[drkitten]

Its not a 'favour' its the application of a bilateral treaty.

No, it's a "favor." Anything that involves the cooperation of another nation-state is a favor on its part.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that "bilateral treaties" are actually binding. The Swiss could simply ignore the treaty at any point if they chose. The US would ultimately have two choices in that case -- accept the Swiss decision, or go to war.

Extradition requests are almost never refused between western developed countries in situations where the accused has already been convicted in the requesting country.

To request documents unrelated to the accused's guilt or innocence is practically unheard of.

Allegations of judicial misconduct on this scale are also practically unheard of. Unusual situations demand unusual responses.

... which is why article 10 was put into the treaty in the first place. The diplomats who negotiated the original treaty expected that unusual circumstances would arise and provided a manner to handle them. The Americans dropped the ball in handling this particular set of circumstances.

 

[DC]

Well they are being put under massive political pressure by France for a start. Add to that that their banks rather rely on criminal elements being guaranteed their quiet anonymity. Finally there are plenty of loony polanski fans who would be aghast if he was locked up - his genious transends rape and pedophilia you see...

that is just laughable.

 

[ingoa]

I see it that way.

An US Court made the decision that the secrecy of the sealed document is more important than the extradiction of Polanski.

Case closed for the Swiss.

P.S.: I am not well educated on Swiss law, but in Germany for example, deals made in front of the judge are binding. The judge later might deliver a lighter sentence, but not a heavier one than agreed. Link in German

 

[drkitten]

Why? He didn't break Swiss law. He didn't commit the crime in Switzerland. He isn't a Swiss citizen. And, it's not like he's up for the death penalty. Americans get roundly chastized if we even question a legal result from another country, but here, the Swiss are not only second-guessing a court of law, but actively imposing their will on that court. I can't help but believe that opinions would still be soundly against the US, were the situation reversed (USA blocking extradition).

Depends on whether or not the US blocked extradition on the grounds that the counterparty failed to live up to its treaty obligations.

 

[DC]

I support your compromise proposal.



I'd say that if you are unwilling to abide by a country's legal system then you should not travel to that country. And if you do, you should be damn sure not to commit any crimes while there.

And we have an appeals process to address the situation.

By resisting extradition France, and now Switzerland, are encouraging people to flee prosecution. Is that really the message that countries that supposedly support "The Rule of Law" really ought to be sending?

To my mind, extradition between free, democratic countries should be basically a rubber-stamp process, to be impeded only in exceptional circumstances.

And, yes, I know that means that the treaties we've signed would probably have to be rewritten.



Why? He didn't break Swiss law. He didn't commit the crime in Switzerland. He isn't a Swiss citizen. And, it's not like he's up for the death penalty. Americans get roundly chastized if we even question a legal result from another country, but here, the Swiss are not only second-guessing a court of law, but actively imposing their will on that court. I can't help but believe that opinions would still be soundly against the US, were the situation reversed (USA blocking extradition).

sure not. the are things in other countries justice system that is not acceptable to our understanding of a justice system.

 

[drkitten]

I see it that way.

An US Court made the decision that the secrecy of the sealed document is more important than the extradiction of Polanski.

Case closed for the Swiss.

Well put.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Allegations of judicial misconduct on this scale are also practically unheard of. Unusual situations demand unusual responses.

If there were any judicial misconduct it should be sorted out through the appeals process.

 

[Lallante]

Obviously you enjoy ignoring the facts. The judge was bound by the agreement because he originally agreed to it. Then, because of pressure, he decided to change it.

The original agreement, which the judge agreed to, included the sentence.

Polansky served the sentence the judge originally agreed to.

The judge made it clear that he was going to ignore the agreement that he had already agreed to and give Polansky a sentence that would save the judge's political skin.

The Swiss, by law, can't extradite someone who has served their sentence. The question then becomes, was there an agreement and did Polansky serve the time agreed to. The evidence they had in their possession showed there was an agreement and Polansky served the agreed sentence. They then asked for other documents that could show there was no agreement and Polansky had not served his sentence. The US refused to unseal the documents so the Swiss had no choice but to go with the evidence and release Polansky.

I suspect that the US was as eager to let this go as Polansky was. There are only two scenarios for the judge, stick to the agreement or don't stick to the agreement. Either way the US justice system was going to look pretty pathetic. At least by not revealing the documents, the US can keep everybody guessing as to why their system is a joke.

Oh please, there is literally no evidence or even claim that the Judge made a formal offer of no further imprisonment or any other form of legally binding agreement. Please feel free to cite evidence if this is not correct.

What you are essentially, and ridiculously, claiming is that Polanski has served his sentance because the Judge made a statement PRIOR to sentancing, that he might not have a further prison sentance.

You are essentially saying that sentancing is meaningless and only the judges pre-sentancing comments determine a legal sentance.

Seriously, you must be trolling or have absolutely no understanding of justice and the rule of law if you think that arguement flies. The judge is 100% free to change or decide the sentance up until the point of sentancing. If this weren't the case, the concept of sentancing would be a farce.

You are deliberately obfuscating by referring to an "agreement" relating to sentancing. This has absolutely no legal impact on the sentance itself and is utterly irrelevent to the Swiss's decision on extradition.

By going on and on about the so-called "agreement" you demonstrate a basic lack of understanding of criminal law and sentancing. There was nothing that bound the judge to sentance in a particular manner. There is no binding plea-bargain on sentancing!


All these arguements could equally apply to a murderer - fearing the death sentance despite his guilty plea (which in almost all cases would be commuted to life imprisonment), he flees. By your logic no country should extradite him and he should be able to live the rest of his life in luxury in a foreign country.

 

[DC]

Oh please, there is literally no evidence or even claim that the Judge made a formal offer of no further imprisonment or any other form of legally binding agreement. Please feel free to cite evidence if this is not correct.

wasn't that exactly what was requested? and was kept sealed?
Evidence was demanded, you refused, end of story.