Switzerland won't extradite Polanski to the U.S.

Source: msnbc.com news services

GENEVA — Switzerland said Monday that it won't extradite Roman Polanski to the United States for sentencing on a charge of unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.

The Oscar-winning director of "Rosemary's Baby," "Chinatown" and "The Pianist" was accused of plying his victim with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a 1977 modeling shoot and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.

What happened after that is a subject of dispute. The defense says the now deceased judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, had agreed in meetings with attorneys to sentence Polanski to a 90-day diagnostic study and nothing more. The judge later changed his mind and summoned Polanski for further sentencing — at which time he fled to his native France, attorneys say.

Polanski was arrested Sept. 26 as he arrived in Zurich to receive a lifetime achievement award at a film festival.

Read more: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/38201135/ns/today-entertainment/

nt

No matter how hard you try, the stain never comes out.

I believe that humor is rarely misplaced. Thank you.

involving the desire for prepubescent children.

But, hey, why not use the most inflammatory word available to stir things up?

I hope that's less offensive to your not-at-all strident sensibilities.

This is a good opportunity for self-righteousness. Don't spoil it with facts.

:wtf:

The issue is whether there is any reason to continue this obsessive persecution. The Swiss say no, and I say good for them.

Your Swiss Nationalism is bizarre and very unappealing, by the way. :hi:

self delete

Almost a distinction without a difference. She was 13. He deserves significant jail time.

Did the "psychiatric condition" cause him to flee justice?? Nice.

"But, hey, why not use the most inflammatory word available to stir things up?"

I imagine for the same reason many people gloss over and/or minimize the charge of rape... :shrug"

In the study on who was the Victims of those sex crimes, no one was younger then 10 (and only one at age 10). A handful were first molested at age 11, most were 12-14 years of age, about the same age as the victim here.

The problem has been and continues to be with 12-14 years olds. In all states that I know of that is TO YOUNG for sex. In my home state of Pennsylvania it is LEGAL to have sex with someone older then 14, if you are no more then four year older then the person you are have sex with. At age 16, sex is legal for anyone (Within other restrictions of the law).

Strictly speaking Pedophilia is for younger children, but that term has come to include 12-14 years olds. The strict definition of Pedophilia may exclude people under the age of 12, but how the word Pedophilia as USED TODAY, includes anyone under age 16 and maybe even age 18. Thus Pedophilia is NOT an inflammatory word, but the most correct word for such actions. The word, Pedophilia, as used and understood by most people today, includes someone who has sex with someone age 13 (And includes anyone who has sex with someone under age 18 in most cases). That is how the term is used TODAY and that is HOW we must understand its use.

It's still there.

:eyes:

My husband, native German speaker, said Polanski has already been freed from house arrest at his home in Gstaad.

The prosecution of this ancient demeanor is senseless.

Even the "victim" has moved on and opposes a trial.

Time for Americans to also move on.

when you drug and rape a 13 year-old child, there should be no statute of limitations.

You use quotations marks around the word victim, implying what exactly?

and 13 years old can't consent to sex with an adult

she was a victim

it was rape, even if she were of consensual age and gave consent.

thanks

She doesn't self-identify as a "victim" and seems to lack the self-righteous spirit of unthinking vengeance that defines the approach of so many Americans to criminal justice.

Polanski paid her off a while ago, and it's because of this very reason that the victim is not who brings charges, but the State. And, no one is asking for vengeance but for justice. He is a child rapist, he drugged her, he admitted he did it, and then fled his slap-on-the-wrist sentence.

And, you should be ashamed for defending his actions and calling those of us against sex crimes "self righteous."

It never ceases to amaze me that DU is a place where people defend someone who drugs and rapes a child.

Polanski plead guilty to statutory rape, and received a six week psych evaluation in prison that recommended probation. The judge then told Polanski's lawyers that he was going to ignore the recommendations of the parole officer and the psychiatrist, and give Polanski prison time and order him deported, at which point Polanski fled the country.

Had the judge abused his discretion, Polanski would have had an appeal point.

But Polanski testified that he knew he faced possible jail time, and extradition.

Read the pages 7, 8, and 9 from the plea.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea7.html

He knew what he was facing. He just didn't think we was going to be held accountable. That how criminals think.

A judge may see something later that causes him to change his mind. Even so, I do not believe there was a written bargain, so he should blame his lawyer.

That aside, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. And certainly don't plead guilty.

The number of people who defend this man and his acts is positively sickening.

as such views are misogynistic in the extreme.

Not to mention lacking in a basic understanding of the law.

If the family of a murderer forgives a him/her, it would be OK to release them without any jailtime?? Forgiveness and release from punishment are two completely different things.

Also, if you kill someone who is not well liked, and you can buy off the family with money, should that mean no punishment for a murderer?

The law does not see things this way. The case did not read "Victim" vs. Polanski, it read "The State of California vs. Polanski". Whether she sees herself today as a victim or not is irrelevant. Polanski violated the criminal statues and raped a woman. Even if the intercourse was consensual, it would still be statutory rape.

This is not about vengeance, it is about justice.

He skipped out on his sentence, not his prosecution.

I appreciate that you added that.

legally released a few days early from the facility and that the judge did an about face suddenly and didnt like that so tried to send him to prison for that time and then deport him?
If thats the case then this whole mess is really the judges own fault for not being more clear on the sentencing in the first place.

Understand that Polanski was in lockup for a psychiatric report. It was finished early, so he was released early.

But he had NOT been sentenced yet. Anticipating his actual sentence, he fled.


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea7.html

the article that started this thread stated

"In exchange, the judge agreed to drop the remaining charges and sentence him to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. However, he was released after 42 days by an evaluator who deemed him mentally sound and unlikely to offend again. The judge responded by saying he was going to send Polanski back to jail for the remainder of the 90 days and that afterward he would ask Polanski to agree to a "voluntary deportation." Polanski then fled the country on the eve of his Feb. 1, 1978, sentencing."

^^ kinda shoots the whole "But he had NOT been sentenced yet." claim down assuming of course that the article is correct.

Furthermore even if he technically hadnt been sentenced seeing as we know what the judge was going to do (assuming again the info from the article is correct) it seems kind of absurd to pursue him missing a few days since he in essence deported himself.

If he were not Roman Polanski, he would not have gotten a sweet plea deal. I think the judge had second thought about the justice of the deal and decided to make it at least look like he was punishing the man.

If this had been you or I, we would probably just be getting our of prison now. There would have been no "ah, poor fellow, let's send him for a psych evaluation to see why he rapes little girls. If it were you or I, you can be DAMNED sure the Swiss would have booted our ass out of the country so fast, we'd have needed tiles from the space shuttle to keep from bursting into flames.

He got over the first time because he was rich and famous. He's getting over again because he is rich and famous. The rich and famous SELDOM pay for their crimes (unless they are black, or hideously unpopular).

Dont forget that our laws have changed alot as has our culture in regards to such crimes since then so he probably would be facing alot worse now than back then.

that even today, he would be punished less severely that you or I. He might face harder time than he did in the 70's, but he would still serve less that a non-celebrity/non-rich person.

Other than Bernie Madoff, can anyone name a rich/famous non-black person who has been punished severely?

not for anything, but READ YOUR OWN POST!


""Polanski then fled the country on the eve of his Feb. 1, 1978, sentencing.""

right--so his sentencing never took place. And guess what I tell all my clients???? The judge isn't party to the plea deal. He isn't bound to promise anything. It's a crapshoot, and Polanski lost, and fled.

Of course, Polanski DID offend again, a fact glossed over by his defenders here....

taken place and that what the judge just suddenly realized he screwed up in his sentencing but since he (Polanski) never appeared before the judge again we wont ever know.

I stand corrected.

SOL only applies to arresting somebody after a stated period of time.

:eyes:

So there are only two choices: Either prosecute this guy for something done 40 years ago that not even the "victim" wants prosecuted, or simply let everyone run around raping whoever they wish.


Yeah, right. I hate to seem too nuanced for those here who demand vengeance, but I think there are other factors and choices to be considered.

:puke:

And I you think she is the only teen girl he's raped I have a bridge to sell ya.

You can always depend on tea baggers and other vengeful supporters of America's broken criminal justice system to accuse anyone who cares about the rights of offenders in the criminal justice process as being in favour of crime.

Yawn.

It's tedious, but I guess it is to be expected in a country that depends on such base motivations to preserve one of the most severe and dysfunctional criminal justice systems in the world.

Not because RAPISTS are getting justice.

in the fucked up USAmerikan criminal-injustice "system"!!

than a supporter of child rapists.
Your use of the quotes around the word victim is as disgusting as anything I've seen of FR.

"to preserve one of the most severe and dysfunctional criminal justice systems in the world". Well said, good sir! SG

This happened too long ago for you to care?? Our criminal justice system is dysfunctional because it believes that a person that pleaded guilty should serve his time??? This person has special rights because he fled to avoid his punishment??

Opposition to your bizarre way of thinking must be the work of teabaggers?? Please. Sounds a lot like misdirection and an admission that you don't have a real defence of your position. Thanks for clearing that up.

...the judge on the case, however, was heard at his all mega WASP Country Club saying what he was gonna do to that "dirty little Jew."

Serve his time as rec'd is one thing...getting screwed over cuz one is a Jew is another thing.

You've raised an interesting legal point. Had the judge abused his discretion in sentencing, Polanski would have had an appeal point.

but Polanski testified that he knew he was facing 15-20 years...

read pages 7, 8, and 9 of his plea....he testified that he knew he might not get probation, but that he might get jail time.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea7.html

Honestly.

I was simply (and unsuccessfully) trying to indicate that she had moved on and didn't spend her life playing the victim in this.

But I agree she was a victim in the initial incident. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

This really has nothing to do with the initial crime, but that crime keeps derailing discussion. This is about having a working justice system.

You should supply a laugh track with that phrase.

I can't think of any social institution that is more dysfunctional than the US "justice" system.

It is called "Justice". Either it is a crime or it isn't. This man left the country a guilty plea, because he didn't like the sentence. Why are we acting like he is more of a victim because she wants to move on?? Silly. Our society still has an interest in seeing him punished, regardless of her position today.

cut the bullshit, will ya?

to be more outraged than the victim.
To me, that means the person has his/her own problems projecting.
Go see your head doctors.

is that we are seldom outraged more than the victims, especially in sex crimes against women. Unless women are high virgins, or are mothers who never EVER had a sex life with more than one partner, and who never dressed in any clothing that ever showed an inch of skin, and never had a drink of alcohol in their life, they are assumed as somehow complicit in their assault. Apparently this applies the 13 year old girls as well.

Also, I wasn't aware that one had to have a "right" to be outraged by outrageous conduct.

Several people here have pointed out that the victim in this case (now a 46 year old woman if my math serves me correctly) doesn't view herself as a victim. That is irrelevant for several reasons:

1) I, too, would reject victimhood status since I would do anything to get rid of the battalion of reporters following me about, asking me personal questions about a deeply painful part of my life. These questions are not asked out of compassion, but are asked to titillate the brain-dead pervs and trash who buy their rags.

2) The case was not "Victim vs. Polanski" but "State of California vs. Polanski", with the State as the surrogate for the public.

3) Victims can be bought off by the sufficiently wealthy.

To suggest that a person who is outraged by a heinous crime needs a "head doctor" is damned insulting and you owe the poster an apology.

Rape is a felony in all 50 states. Please read a bit on the subject before embarking on your lecture tour. :rofl:

I'm not a huge fan of the sometimes straight-laced, materialistic Swiss. This time they are right. SG

It's not like what was done to her was wrong or anything. :sarcasm:

So, if he raped and sodomized 10 4-year olds, then fled justice for 30 years, would you also say that it is obsessive of us to want justice?? Careful.....your answer will either be correct and hypocritical or wrong and creepy.

but he has also made a lot of good movies, so he does not deserve to be punished.

Brilliant take. Thanks.

What is the precise and relevant amount of time after a rape one should "move on?" On what is that time-frame based? Does that apply only to this crime, or all crimes? If the former, why only this one?

:eyes:

yes, the "victim", was a VICTIM.

:puke:

From the updated article:

'The Justice Ministry also said that national interests were taken into consideration in the stunning decision.'

(Edited to keep the above FACT in the conversation.)

America has one of the most punitive, vengeful criminal justice systems in the world. And while some celebrities are treated harshly for PR purposes, America's acceptance of social and economic inequality generally means that rich people get to buy their way out of criminal justice problems, while poor people go to jail.

This being so, I support any country that repudiates their criminal extradition agreements with the U.S. Sending people to face charges in the US is akin to sending prisoners to selected countries for torture, something which no country supports. Other than America, of course.

:eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

such as forcing Americans to look at some of the flaws in their justice system (such as the torture, as you point out), then we can find a silver lining.

posts on the country with a grain of salt.

Switzerland is no more one-dimensional than the US. I wasn't pleased when, during the Bush regime, people bashed "the Americans" as stupid warmongers just because the president was a criminal and an idiot. And I won't stand silent while the same broadbrush is applied to other countries.

Ever see an "anti-Switzerland screed" from me? No? Anything I've written untrue? Also no?

Your move. :hi:

As an American, I also know there's plenty of government malfeasance to go around, including the US's early support of eugenics and sheltering (and even hiring) Nazi scientists after World War II.

Could you provide some facts, though, about the "child molesters" thing?

I stand with the Swiss on this one, Heidi. I've had some issues with the Swiss at other times and find their permissive and self-interested banking and financial policies to be regrettable.
This time though, for whatever reasons, they have made the right call from a humanitarian point of view. SG

How "humanitarian" of them.

how Europeans could easily view the US stance on this as hypocritical, and to understand part of the rationale for my position. SG

you may think you have regarding the punishment of felons.

Disgusting.

Replace the word in this sentence:


The _____ are all about the _______. Nobody else counts.

what Polanski did was completely wrong. But since this happened over 30 years ago why does not the statue of limitations apply. It does on everything else. On TV you see where cases of rape run out before they can be prosecuted. Some one could you explain how this case can still be prosecuted. And why don't they just prosecute in absentia or what ever they call it. That would end all this. He would ten be sentenced and the case could be closed.

He did not show up in court to defend himslef. He has never served his sentence. Statute of limitations only applies to filing the charges and bringing a case to court.

There is no statue of limitations for someone after they are sentenced.

He admitted he was guilty and was found guilty. The sentence was a slap on the wrist. He jumped sentencing.

It is quite appalling the Swiss aren't';t sending him here to serve out his sentence.

I'm glad he won't have to serve time in one of America's wretched prisons.

There are lots of good things about the US. It's vengeful criminal justice and disgraceful penal systems aren't among them.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How about a pedophile priest? A rich oil executive? A criminal banker? This guy is not an actualy dog, just a "dog".

from Canada....

Canada actually tried to keep him from being extradited to CA for his serial killer crimes.

So the US offered to drop all crimes against him, which would have made him eligible for Canadian residency....

And Canada had Charles Ng on the next plane.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Is your experience is academic or practical?

everyone else would let it go, but she only counts when the wrath of justice can be raged, not when said wrath hurts her by bringing her into the spotlight over an incident almost 30 years ago.

Justice is a complex thing, and rarely served well while in a moralistic rage.

I don't know this guy at all and don't care much (I am certainly not enraged by it), as a general proposition.....however......

.....If you are suggesting that punishing a rapist of a 13 year old is "moralistice rage", you are free to hold that view. I will happily stand on the other side of this issue......the non-creepy side.

something, but justice seems the least part of it.

but fled when he didn't like his sentence. He IS guilty. He didn't change his guilty plea, which was his right, he fled. There is NO statute of limitations on fleeing justice. The clock stops.

-1000000000000000000000000000000000

then why do you- even with a huge Democratic majority and Democratic President still stand alone beside Somalia as the only nation that refuses to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#United_States

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:rofl:

Couldn't agree more. The hypocrisy is stunning. SG

Condemning the actions of a child rapist and the Swiss government for failing to extradite him is not predicated on the passage of a treaty. Certainly, if it were my my choice the treaty would be passed.

However, the inability of myself and others to compel officials we have no control over to adopt treaties we support, in no way abrogates our ability to criticize the Swiss for allowing a child rapist freedom.

And you know that the posters in favor of extradition support Somalia's child labor laws how...?

Or is it that (and I find this more likely) this thread is merely about one specific individual...?

They are a bunch of puritanical bloodthirsty warmongers who don't give a fuck about the law or a 13 year old girl. They are self righteous to the core and like ancient Rome they enjoy seeing heads roll. They like their stars to rise and they love to watch them fall. They don't give a damn about Polanski, Switzerland, or the girl. Quit kidding yourselves here in this thread. Justice hasn't lived in America for a long time. Hence you have the Iraq War, no real civil rights, illegal wiretapping, stolen elections, extradition (kidnapping and torture) and so much more.

If Polanski were political despot (like Ferdinand Marcos, for example, or even our last president), we'd probably be trying to find him a government job or comfy digs with an ocean view.

And folks eager to rush in to call me a child rape apologist need to consider the facts:
1. Switzerland was the only country willing to execute a US arrest warrant on Polanski in the three decades he's been traveling all over the world.
2. The Swiss justice ministry asked the US to provide documents related Polanski's 1977-78 sentencing procedure, and the US declined that request.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's that God-awful Old Testament mentality rearing its ugly head again, and here on a "liberal" site, too!! SG

...helps bring things into perspective. I agree with everything you said and I'm ashamed to realize I'm a part of that problem sometimes.

PB

I wish I'd seem at least a modicum of objectivity rather than mere emotionalism, over-generalizations, post-hoc-ergo-prompter-hoc, invalid use of the "or" qualifier (and a few others) in your post...

USamerica is the most bloodthirsty nation on Earth...

It's a wonder the Empire doesn't bring back crucifixion...

intense US pressure, the Swiss have made the humanitarian decision. Polanski has paid the price for his crime of 40 years ago--by being relegated to Europe, unable to practice or profit from his art in the nexus of moviedom, Hollywood. The girl, now grown woman, has refused to be a part of this over-zealous manhunt. SG

1. Europe is very nice. Especially when rich.
2. They make movies in Europe. Star Wars, for example. Anyway, this is not a punishment. He has been paid handsomely.
3. Her paid off the girl.
4. The girl not wanting to cooperate has nothing to do with it.

couldn't have said it half as well myself. SG

Nice try, though. That didn't work for Ernst Zundel and it won't work for you.

The man drugged and anally raped a child, then pleaded guilty to a charge in court for it. Guilty pleas generally require allocutions, for him to tell the court exactly what he did and to indicate that he understands what is happening and why. Quite frankly, the sentences given to anyone else have no relevance here, nor do the conditions in any prison. What matters is what happened and what he pleaded guilty to. He can always change his guilty plea and have his day in court, but he chose to flee instead.

Sentencing negotiations were not relevant to the Swiss in the request for extradition, since he had already pleaded guilty and was therefore a fugitive. He had therefore accepted any legal sentence the court may impose for the charge to which he pleaded guilty. FYI - a plea bargain is between the defendant and the prosecutor, not the defendant and the court. The judge does not have to accept its terms. If the plea bargain is rejected, the defendant doesn't have to plead guilty.

and in spite of many issues I have with them, and even being no great supporter of Polanski, the man, I stand with the Swiss on this call. SG

Which is why the US needs to consider what its response will be. Choosing to shelter an admitted child-rapist who skipped out on the justice system deserves to be responded to, in unambiguous terms.

"Whatever" has turned into the great climax to the intellectual-coward's missive...

Since 1978 he has appeared in 7 films, 1 TV episode, written 6 screenplays, directed 10 films, produced 7 films and won an academy award for best director. Some price he paid.

Personally I think he didn't suffer too much nor do I think he is the least bit remorseful. The man is a pig.

What price did he pay? Living a life of luxury in Europe?

Fucking other teenage girls?

Why should a child-rapist not face justice?

Raping a minor should result in the punishment of living in Europe for 40 years? Egalitarian, but misplaced.

who would have been free to appeal his case and any perceived legal injustices. That's ironic.

that was in : Entertainment.

to the entertainment world and those who follow it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The US had refused to hand over a legal document which had been requested. In its absense they had no alternative other than to set him free. Keep your eye on TV news and you might see the Swiss judge interviewed as we have here in the UK.

Makes me wonder if the US actually wanted him back.

Right....

Well, brie-boy will die in Graterford. Or whatever hole-in-the wall the PA BOP put him in.

with an original plea bargain which means nothing whatsoever to me anyway and I've no clue as to who
Ira Einhorn is. Was he one of Charlie Poole's North Carolina Ramblers ?

Than to admit judicial malfeasance 30 years ago. The US prosecutors don't want Polanski back. They want to appear as though another nation tnwarted their attempts. By the looks of most DUers' responses to today's decision, the US prosecutors are white knights against the huge, dark European empire.

DU selective outrage - you just can't beat it!

justice doesn't apply to the rich & famous

"Justice" doesn't apply in the USAmerican criminal-injustice system at all...

The poor get fucked...

The rich get off...

And no one gets "justice"

..and he has a statue outside Staples Center.

Right here

PB

Look, nearly every year since the 80s the state budget has been tardy. Including the one for this fiscal year. And the state is STILL worried about an old sexual assault case from '79 in which the victim doesn't even give a damn anymore? When a whole lot more children in the state can't get a decent education as schools are so cash-strapped they're cutting everything from teachers to computers to extracurricular activities?

SCHOOLS, NOT PRISONS...but don't free the Manson family just yet.

(if you're rich, or talented, or if enough time has past since your absconsion, or something--the pro-rape folks aren't terribly articulate. :shrug: )

:puke:

i for one was NOT looking forward to years of "polanski on trial" providing the silly shiny distraction from what's really happening in the world

i think the swiss made a good decision, how do you extradite a man who already served his sentence, was released, freaked out because something screwy happened and fled to save himself, and now the usa won't provide the proper documents? you really can't, now can you? his instinct that the judge was hollywooding and happy to destroy his life for the publicity may very well have been correct, we'll never know, all we know is that usa won't provide the proper documents to prove he still had time to serve...

won't get into the argument abt whether his sentence was "long enough" or the rest of the bullshit, it's over, the victim wants it to be over, let's move on...

I posted this thread recently http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8680261&mesg_id=8690915 but oddly am not able to reply. Why?

Racism is when someone of a specific ethnicity is handled with kid gloves while others would be handled differently. The Polanski situation is about pure racism.

The select few get immunity while most others would get imprisonment and extradition. There is no other answer why a scum bag such as Roman Polanksi was given immunity for an egregious crime when he has given nothing to society at large. Money and power shouldn't mean immunity.

thread, I'd guess the guy was being hounded to the ends of the Earth for voicing an unpopular political opinion and taking a stand for what's right. You know, instead of drugging and raping a child. I may have a lot of strange ideas about morality, but by the gods I'll go to my grave having never demanded the freedom of someone that admitted to raping children.

This isn't being "soft on crime", because there's no such thing. It's admitting your love of an artist trumps the buggering of children. If it's wrong when someone you hate does it, it's just as wrong when someone you like does it.

(To the OP: This isn't directed at you.)

:sarcasm:

One less victim for the criminal-injustice "system" of the barbaric USAmerikan Empire!

:woohoo: