Swiss National Interests

[ddt]

Is not relevant.

The extradition request is for what Polanski plead guilty to - sexual intercourse with a minor.

The statute of limitations does not apply either, as criminal proceedings had been started day after the crime, and that stops the term for the statute of limitations.

See the other thread on Polanski
.

 

[drkitten]

Is not relevant.

Actually, the penalty is quite relevant. If the Swiss -- more generally, if the country housing the fugitive -- consider the potential penalty to be unfair or unjust, then extradition will be denied as a matter of routine.

The statute of limitations does not apply either, as criminal proceedings had been started day after the crime, and that stops the term for the statute of limitations.

Again, sure it does. If the Swiss have any objections to the types of procedural due process accorded defendants in US courts, they will refuse to extradite. Statute of limitations isn't much of an issue in this particular case, because Swiss law more or less matches US law on this issue. But the procedural due process -- whether the judge is allowed to back out of a negotiated plea bargain -- appears to have been the problem that caused this whole thing to fail. The Swiss needed assurances about procedural due process that the US was unwilling to give.

 

[Aoidoi]

Yes, that still wouldn't make him a pedophile. Perhaps a Hebephile, or a Ephebophile depending on their ages, but even that would require evidence that he is almost exclusively attracted to those age groups.

I work on my car, do they call me a mechanic? I mow my lawn hundreds of time, do they call me a gardener? But spend one night with a goat and what do they call me?

(with apologies to whoever I'm paraphrasing)

 

[ddt]

Actually, the penalty is quite relevant. If the Swiss -- more generally, if the country housing the fugitive -- consider the potential penalty to be unfair or unjust, then extradition will be denied as a matter of routine.

I agree with that.

It seems I partly misread Beerina's text. My apologies to Beerina.

The "having sex with a minor" part is relevant, yes. According to LA County DDA Walgren who's currently on the case, the maximum penalty at the time was 2 years for that. I can't imagine that being seen unfair by any other country (more too lenient than too harsh).

However, the "giving drugs" part is not relevant, as it wasn't part of the plea bargain.

Again, sure it does. If the Swiss have any objections to the types of procedural due process accorded defendants in US courts, they will refuse to extradite. Statute of limitations isn't much of an issue in this particular case, because Swiss law more or less matches US law on this issue. But the procedural due process -- whether the judge is allowed to back out of a negotiated plea bargain -- appears to have been the problem that caused this whole thing to fail. The Swiss needed assurances about procedural due process that the US was unwilling to give.

According to Walgren's affidavit which was part of the extradition request, they'll not back out of the plea bargain. He expressly says in his affidavit he only wants extradition for the other five charges only for the case that Polanski himself backs out of the plea bargain.

The transcripts of the August and September 1977 court sessions don't indicate any of that kind either. The judge didn't promise either in those court sessions that he'd follow the recommendations of the psychiatrists or of the subsequent diagnostic evaluation in Chino prison.

I think the problem has more to do with the half-year sentence threshold in the extradition treaty, see my posts (link, link, link) in the other thread.

 

[MikeMangum]

Here, let me fix this for you...

"But but but..."

Exactly.