Looks like Polanski will get away again.

[Aepervius]

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.

As previously said on what the judge did do or say, it isn't that simple, especially as he ordered the initial 42 days in psychiatry. To the Swiss expert on the case it was considered relevant. So what's your expertise that you seem to assume those Swiss legal expert were wrong in such case ?

I see a bunch of people ANGRY with Polanski being freed, and whereas I understand their anger, and I am myself not happy with Polanski getting a jail-out card, I have yet to see any of those pretending the Swiss justice decision was wrong, to provide a detailed explanation with precedent case on why within the Swiss justice system the decision was incorrect. At best I only see *one* swiss expert in a newspaper be cited on saying he would not have deemed the document necessary, without any clarification. But *NONE* of the poster here even have the legal Swiss expertise to decide that.

All I see is a bunch of people dropping their skepticism to let their anger have free reign. That's OK, but don't suddenly pretend you are all expert here. None of us are.

 

[Cainkane1]

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.

Well ok if you say so. If you want a predator walking your streets theres nothing I can do about it. Incidentally I agree with much of what I have read in your posts which I enjoy reading. Maybe your right and I'm wrong. Ms. Geimer says to let it go and maybe we should.

Have a nice day.

 

[drkitten]

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.

Irrelevant. That's precisely the reason they should be concerned about issues relating to his sentencing.

The United States is in a position to make a pre-determination about what his sentence will be; this is, in fact, routine in death penalty cases, even before the case comes to trial. If you need the defendant extradited from Canada, you need to promise that he will not be sentenced to death, irrespective of the outcome of the trial.

If the US won't give the necessary undertaking, the extradition won't happen.

 

[Aepervius]

Well ok if you say so. If you want a predator walking your streets theres nothing I can do about it. Incidentally I agree with much of what I have read in your posts which I enjoy reading. Maybe your right and I'm wrong. Ms. Geimer says to let it go and maybe we should.

Have a nice day.

Just a last point : i do NOT want Polanski in the street walking. Heck i would punch/kick the guy in the nade myself. But despise even much more due process be broken on a case by case basis depending on what we find hateful at the time.

 

[drkitten]

So you advocate flight from justice whenever someone feels they're not getting a fair shake from the legal system?

It seems to have worked. I'd feel much worse about it if the people who didn't flee from justice had appropriate recourse, or if the US were actually investigation the allegations of judicial misconduct in any reasonable way.

 

[qayak]

No I wasn't referring to you, which is why I didn't quote you. Several others have stated that Polanski has served his time.

No doubt you are referring to me.

There is no doubt there was an agreement whether the judge could ignore it or not. The original agreement was sought by the prosecutor and victim in order to protect the victim. Polanski agreed. The judge agreed with the option of bailing on it.

Polanski served the agreed to time in the agreement.

If you read the agreement, if the judge changed his mind, Polanski was allowed to change his plea and go to trial. However, would he have been able to at the sentencing hearing or would he have been given the task of appealing the sentence for a crime he admitted to? That is another question.

But, there is NO DOUBT that there was an agreement and Polanski served the time agreed to.

You will also note that everyone involved was worried that Polanski would be killed if he went to prison. It would seem that even a dishonest judge has more common sense than many display on this forum.

 

[qayak]

Well ok if you say so. If you want a predator walking your streets theres nothing I can do about it.

Everyone involved came to the conclusion that Polanski was not what you say, why do you keep saying it?

 

[qayak]

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, he wasn't. It was proven that eh didn't do what he was accused of.

There are a lot of reasons to plead guilty when you have done nothing wrong, including, saving yourself a lot of time and money and to prevent raising the ire of the judge where you may get a very long sentence if you are found guilty anyway. It happens all the time.

No one else would have gotten off so easily.

They do all the time.

So just because the USA refuses to hand over a few documents is no reason to let him go.

Oh, yes it is!

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.

Perhaps you need to exercise your rights as a citizen and demand from your own authorities the reason for not turning over the documents. Your complaint is with them, not the Swiss or Polanski.

The decent thing to do, according to my own strange view of legal proceedings, would be to hand him over so that he can face the music. Its not going to happen but it should.

There, fixed that for you.

 

[Ziggurat]

yes it was needed by the swiss authorities and their request got denied. so they were not able to follow the extradite request.

swiss authorities have delivered a lot secret information that the USA requested and needed, now we requested data and it got denied, what do you expect? we trust your words blindly?

Like I said, you want to argue that he was let go on a technicality and that it was right to do so in order to uphold the process, go ahead. But don't even pretend that Polanski's freedom is in itself a good thing. It's not. A rapist and fugitive from justice has been set free, in large part because he's rich and famous. Have the guts to admit what your government did.

 

[AvalonXQ]

So you advocate flight from justice whenever someone feels they're not getting a fair shake from the legal system?

I will condone the flight whenever someone actually isn't getting a fair shake.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Like I said, you want to argue that he was let go on a technicality and that it was right to do so in order to uphold the process, go ahead. But don't even pretend that Polanski's freedom is in itself a good thing. It's not.

If you want to argue that Polanski is technically a rapist or a pedophile, go ahead. But don't even pretend that he fits any reasonable definition of either. He doesn't.

 

[DC]

Like I said, you want to argue that he was let go on a technicality and that it was right to do so in order to uphold the process, go ahead. But don't even pretend that Polanski's freedom is in itself a good thing. It's not. A rapist and fugitive from justice has been set free, in large part because he's rich and famous. Have the guts to admit what your government did.

i admit my government let him go after the USA refused to deliver the requested document.

admit what your government did.

 

[drkitten]

Like I said, you want to argue that he was let go on a technicality and that it was right to do so in order to uphold the process, go ahead.

I don't think it was even a technicality. The United States failed to fulfil its obligations under the treaty.

 

[Cainkane1]

Just a last point : i do NOT want Polanski in the street walking. Heck i would punch/kick the guy in the nade myself. But despise even much more due process be broken on a case by case basis depending on what we find hateful at the time.

I understand. You want the letter of the law followed. I guess Polanski has slipped through the cracks. Lets just enjoy his movies and comply with his victims wishes and let it go.

If this sounds like I'm being facetious I'm not. I admit you're right. I wish there was a such thing as Karma and the principle of what goes around comes around would suit me just fine.

 

[ZirconBlue]

btw, then you also didn't need Polanski back.

I agee. We want him back.

A number of the anti rule-of-law crowd have suggested this delightfully counterfactual statement.

I'd say knowingly harboring convicted criminals, and thereby encouraging others to flee justice, is the far more "anti rule-of-law" position.

It seems to have worked. I'd feel much worse about it if the people who didn't flee from justice had appropriate recourse, or if the US were actually investigation the allegations of judicial misconduct in any reasonable way.

They do have appropriate recourse. That's what the appeals process is for. If the alleged victim of said "misconduct" were to have come forward, it might have been addressed.

I will condone the flight whenever someone actually isn't getting a fair shake.

Glad to know that you advocate criminal activity. I guess you can join the rest of us on the "anti rule-of-law" side.

 

[Ziggurat]

i admit my government let him go after the USA refused to deliver the requested document.

admit what your government did.

Yup: we refused to unseal a document that had been sealed.

 

[Ziggurat]

I will condone the flight whenever someone actually isn't getting a fair shake.

You're condoning flight whenever the perp thinks he isn't getting a fair shake. We have a process for dealing with people who don't get a fair shake: it's called the appeals process. That's what Polanski was legally obligated to use. He's a fugitive from justice, an outlaw.

 

[Aepervius]

You're condoning flight whenever the perp thinks he isn't getting a fair shake. We have a process for dealing with people who don't get a fair shake: it's called the appeals process. That's what Polanski was legally obligated to use. He's a fugitive from justice, an outlaw.

I think you are right, but jsut playing the devil advocate, some perp lose on appeal and more, only to be exonerated decades afterward by DNA evidence, and have the prosecutor say "I still think its him". So trusting on the appel isn't exactly what I would do. If I was really innocent I would rather run away, after being condemned in first instance, than mold in prison while waiting a second court to HYPOTHETICALLY find me innocent.

That said the perp in question is guilty so that don't really apply here.

I would have Polanski sent in the US and get to prison , if ONLY to avoid the constant whining of some people here CT like "he got away because he is a rich film maker" (tm). But I refuse to break the rule of law to satisfy the torch and pitchfork carrying mob.

 

[DC]

Yup: we refused to unseal a document that had been sealed.

wasn't a good idea, he.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I think you are right, but jsut playing the devil advocate, some perp lose on appeal and more, only to be exonerated decades afterward by DNA evidence, and have the prosecutor say "I still think its him". So trusting on the appel isn't exactly what I would do. If I was really innocent I would rather run away, after being condemned in first instance, than mold in prison while waiting a second court to HYPOTHETICALLY find me innocent.

That said the perp in question is guilty so that don't really apply here.

I would have Polanski sent in the US and get to prison , if ONLY to avoid the constant whining of some people here CT like "he got away because he is a rich film maker" (tm). But I refuse to break the rule of law to satisfy the torch and pitchfork carrying mob.

So, you "refuse to break the rule of law" in this case, but explicitly endorse doing so in your first paragraph.


ETA: Torches and pitchforks are more a European thing. We hardly ever go after people with torches and pitchforks in the US.